By DOTTY NIST
Parking and parking problems, especially south of the bay, generated a lot of discussion on Oct. 27 with the presentation of a draft parking ordinance.
This was at the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting on that date at the Walton County Courthouse.
Wayne Dyess, county planning and development services director, presented the proposed ordinance to the commissioners for their initial review, comments and direction on revisions and additions.This is the current process prior to an ordinance undergoing official review and consideration in public hearings.
Even at this preliminary stage, the ordinance drew a good deal of public comment.
Dyess indicated that the effort to address problems with parking had begun a couple of years ago with the predecessor of the draft ordinance now before the BCC. This ordinance, he explained, is “pared down” from the one under consideration at that time. The previous ordinance was not approved.
The three areas covered by the proposed ordinance, Dyess continued, are parking associated with residential lots less than one-half acre, requirements for parking associated with outdoor seating at restaurants, and joint parking agreements approved by the BCC. Currently there is no requirement for parking associated with outdoor seating at restaurants.
Much of the discussion at the Oct. 27 meeting was on a major issue that the ordinance is aimed at addressing, parking associated with “monster houses” and with homes that are approved with a certain number of bedrooms and later acquire additional bedrooms when, for example, a study or sewing room is turned into a bedroom.
Currently parking requirements in the Walton County Land Development Code are based on the number of bedrooms. For small lots, the proposed ordinance would instead tie parking requirements to home square footage.
District 4 Commissioner Sara Comander commented that she was certainly in favor of going forward with that part of the ordinance. She spoke of problems with cars parked on other people’s property and elsewhere where they do not belong. Comander said the only alternative would be to ticket when parking is a problem in connection with these homes, along with pulling people off the right-of-way.
District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones, who was not on the BCC at the time the previous ordinance was proposed, asked if stakeholder groups had been involved in the review process. She was of the opinion that the ordinance would not be beneficial to the north end.
Dyess reminded the commissioners that the ordinance would apply to homes on small lots, where the primary problem exists. He said he believed most residential lots north of the bay were larger. Dyess said this part of the ordinance was modeled after parking requirements in the Grayton Beach Neighborhood Plan.
Lloyd Blue commented that he had the privilege of putting together the ordinance for that neighborhood plan. However he disagreed with it being used as a model for other communities that are not similar to Grayton Beach, one of the oldest historical communities in the area.
Blue said the Grayton Beach ordinance took the “philosophical position” of maintaining the “unique cottage character” of the community.
He observed that the goal of the proposed ordinance seemed to be to solve the rental problem by putting restrictions on normal homeowners, which was unfair. Blue said he hoped the ordinance would not make existing homes nonconforming.
He suggested that rental problems be addressed by focusing on homes rented out short-term with enforcement, since owners of these homes are required to register with the clerk’s office.
Turning to the proposed parking requirements for outdoor seating at restaurants, Blue also objected to this part of the ordinance being modeled on requirements in the Point Washington Neighborhood Plan. He predicted that larger properties such as Seaside, Alys Beach, and WaterColor, and planned unit developments (PUDs) would get exemptions from these requirements and that “mom and pop” businesses would not, resulting in harm to the small businesses.
“It is a tourist problem,” Andy McAlexander to the commissioners. The problem, he said, should be handled by the Walton County Tourist Development Council (TDC) and “enforced by parking tickets.”
“It’s not a residential problem,” McAlexander emphasized.
“I think we need to do something, and this is a good start,” District 5 Commissioner Cindy Meadows countered. She suggested that the ordinance could possibly be limited to the area south of the bay.
Meadows said her south Walton County neighborhood used to be mostly full-time residents but is now almost all short-term rentals with a few part-time residents. People are buying lots and building homes just to rent short-term, Meadows said.
“I think we need to face the realization that south Walton is becoming a resort rental place,” she observed.
Meadows stated that the ordinance would apply to new, not existing, homes and businesses. To help small businesses, it would be possible to deem all existing businesses conforming, she suggested.
The TDC and county would not be able to handle enforcement on short-term rentals because, by state law, they are not allowed to have names of owners short-term rental properties registered with the Walton County Clerk of Courts, she noted.
Much can be done with the proposed ordinance moving forward, Meadows said. She was of the opinion that it would be worthwhile to at least advance it and take public comment.
District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman, who was formerly with the Walton County Sheriff[‘s Office, discussed the difficulties of ticketing illegally parked vehicles. For a ticket to be enforceable, the officer is required to get the signature of the owner, he said. Chapman also said that residents of other states may decide not to pay their fine and that there is little that can be done about it.
Chapman agreed with Blue that a person building a house to live in and not rent out should not be required to meet the parking requirements outlined in the ordinance.
There was discussion among the commissioners of exempting such a property owner from those requirements.
Comander expressed concern that the property owner could say that they would not be renting and later go ahead and rent.
There was discussion on a property owner who planned not to rent and changed their mind and also on how the county would be alerted to such a change in use. Requirements for converting to live-in to rent, were discussed, including a requirement to add more parking.
Dyess observed that it would be more efficient to deal with parking when a home is being built as opposed to “retrofit.”
South Walton County property owner Lisa Boushy urged the commissioners to address the parking problem. When there is parking all along the right-of-way, “it’s a safety issue,” she warned. Some communities only allow parking on one’s own property, Boushy said.
She encouraged the commissioners to have people representing different interests assist with the ordinance.
The commissioners gave direction for staff to bring the ordinance back before them with as many of their suggestions incorporated as possible. There is to be further review by the BCC before the public hearing process begins for the ordinance.
Parking and parking problems, especially south of the bay, generated a lot of discussion on Oct. 27 with the presentation of a draft parking ordinance.
This was at the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting on that date at the Walton County Courthouse.
Wayne Dyess, county planning and development services director, presented the proposed ordinance to the commissioners for their initial review, comments and direction on revisions and additions.This is the current process prior to an ordinance undergoing official review and consideration in public hearings.
Even at this preliminary stage, the ordinance drew a good deal of public comment.
Dyess indicated that the effort to address problems with parking had begun a couple of years ago with the predecessor of the draft ordinance now before the BCC. This ordinance, he explained, is “pared down” from the one under consideration at that time. The previous ordinance was not approved.
The three areas covered by the proposed ordinance, Dyess continued, are parking associated with residential lots less than one-half acre, requirements for parking associated with outdoor seating at restaurants, and joint parking agreements approved by the BCC. Currently there is no requirement for parking associated with outdoor seating at restaurants.
Much of the discussion at the Oct. 27 meeting was on a major issue that the ordinance is aimed at addressing, parking associated with “monster houses” and with homes that are approved with a certain number of bedrooms and later acquire additional bedrooms when, for example, a study or sewing room is turned into a bedroom.
Currently parking requirements in the Walton County Land Development Code are based on the number of bedrooms. For small lots, the proposed ordinance would instead tie parking requirements to home square footage.
District 4 Commissioner Sara Comander commented that she was certainly in favor of going forward with that part of the ordinance. She spoke of problems with cars parked on other people’s property and elsewhere where they do not belong. Comander said the only alternative would be to ticket when parking is a problem in connection with these homes, along with pulling people off the right-of-way.
District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones, who was not on the BCC at the time the previous ordinance was proposed, asked if stakeholder groups had been involved in the review process. She was of the opinion that the ordinance would not be beneficial to the north end.
Dyess reminded the commissioners that the ordinance would apply to homes on small lots, where the primary problem exists. He said he believed most residential lots north of the bay were larger. Dyess said this part of the ordinance was modeled after parking requirements in the Grayton Beach Neighborhood Plan.
Lloyd Blue commented that he had the privilege of putting together the ordinance for that neighborhood plan. However he disagreed with it being used as a model for other communities that are not similar to Grayton Beach, one of the oldest historical communities in the area.
Blue said the Grayton Beach ordinance took the “philosophical position” of maintaining the “unique cottage character” of the community.
He observed that the goal of the proposed ordinance seemed to be to solve the rental problem by putting restrictions on normal homeowners, which was unfair. Blue said he hoped the ordinance would not make existing homes nonconforming.
He suggested that rental problems be addressed by focusing on homes rented out short-term with enforcement, since owners of these homes are required to register with the clerk’s office.
Turning to the proposed parking requirements for outdoor seating at restaurants, Blue also objected to this part of the ordinance being modeled on requirements in the Point Washington Neighborhood Plan. He predicted that larger properties such as Seaside, Alys Beach, and WaterColor, and planned unit developments (PUDs) would get exemptions from these requirements and that “mom and pop” businesses would not, resulting in harm to the small businesses.
“It is a tourist problem,” Andy McAlexander to the commissioners. The problem, he said, should be handled by the Walton County Tourist Development Council (TDC) and “enforced by parking tickets.”
“It’s not a residential problem,” McAlexander emphasized.
“I think we need to do something, and this is a good start,” District 5 Commissioner Cindy Meadows countered. She suggested that the ordinance could possibly be limited to the area south of the bay.
Meadows said her south Walton County neighborhood used to be mostly full-time residents but is now almost all short-term rentals with a few part-time residents. People are buying lots and building homes just to rent short-term, Meadows said.
“I think we need to face the realization that south Walton is becoming a resort rental place,” she observed.
Meadows stated that the ordinance would apply to new, not existing, homes and businesses. To help small businesses, it would be possible to deem all existing businesses conforming, she suggested.
The TDC and county would not be able to handle enforcement on short-term rentals because, by state law, they are not allowed to have names of owners short-term rental properties registered with the Walton County Clerk of Courts, she noted.
Much can be done with the proposed ordinance moving forward, Meadows said. She was of the opinion that it would be worthwhile to at least advance it and take public comment.
District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman, who was formerly with the Walton County Sheriff[‘s Office, discussed the difficulties of ticketing illegally parked vehicles. For a ticket to be enforceable, the officer is required to get the signature of the owner, he said. Chapman also said that residents of other states may decide not to pay their fine and that there is little that can be done about it.
Chapman agreed with Blue that a person building a house to live in and not rent out should not be required to meet the parking requirements outlined in the ordinance.
There was discussion among the commissioners of exempting such a property owner from those requirements.
Comander expressed concern that the property owner could say that they would not be renting and later go ahead and rent.
There was discussion on a property owner who planned not to rent and changed their mind and also on how the county would be alerted to such a change in use. Requirements for converting to live-in to rent, were discussed, including a requirement to add more parking.
Dyess observed that it would be more efficient to deal with parking when a home is being built as opposed to “retrofit.”
South Walton County property owner Lisa Boushy urged the commissioners to address the parking problem. When there is parking all along the right-of-way, “it’s a safety issue,” she warned. Some communities only allow parking on one’s own property, Boushy said.
She encouraged the commissioners to have people representing different interests assist with the ordinance.
The commissioners gave direction for staff to bring the ordinance back before them with as many of their suggestions incorporated as possible. There is to be further review by the BCC before the public hearing process begins for the ordinance.