The Walton County Board of County Commissioners voted Tuesday, March 14, 2017 to approve the Sandestin development proposal that allows multiple high rises, deletion of active recreation areas, redefinition of open space, thousands of additional residential units and thousands of commercial square footage to a road system that can hardly accommodate existing development. It was no surprise that Commissioners Chapman, Jones, Anderson voted to approve. Commissioner Comander and Nipper understood the consequences of such a plan and voted no. The aporoval was no surprise. The motion was made by Anderson whose campaign was heavily funded by both the developers and their Destin attorney. It was no surprise that Jones voted yes as she has been" in bed " with the developers and attorneys since they helped her regain a Commission seat she lost in 2012. She also drove Anderson to his campaign events openly supporting him in the 2016 election. So we expect these two to vote the same on 99% of the BOCC votes. Somewhat surprising is Chapman's vote because we thought he was interested in making sure adequate infrastructure was in place before boatloads of new development was approved. We guessed wrong. We wonder what or who pushed him to ignore resident's concerns. This approval is a bad omen for the quality of life and future of South Walton. If the BCC threesome can be persuaded to count roads as open space, approve a high rise on a sensitive island, what else can they be persuaded to do? When it comes to overdevelopment of coastal south Walton, decisions made by these three will determine the value of your home and investment, the quality of life in your neighborhood, and your ability to get out of your driveway and onto congested roads. Overdevelopment will happen if the citizens don't rise up and take back control of their government. No wonder the developers, many attorneys , and most of the BCC are opposed to incorporation. They might lose their power over your life South Walton. it Walton Many have asked WaltonPolitics to blog on the 395/30A intersection as it is once again in the spotlight with many asking the BCC to reconsider the design and move the multitude path to the south side of 30A. in 2007, the development plans for the "V" condos and commercial were approved by the BCC with the condition that the developer pay approximately $1,000,000 in proportionate fair share funds to be spent on a round- a/bout that was recommended in the 2006 Genesis 30A Transportation Study. (Some of these dates and numbers are approximate.) The money was collected and put into the 30A Prop Share Account. The real estate bubble occurred soon after in 2008. The plans for the "v" development were put on hold. The intersection improvements were also put on hold by the BCC that served from 2008-2012. We do not have information about anything that happened with regard to the improvements during this time.period except that nothing was done at the intersection. The recession and oil spill occurred during this period. In 2012, the market began to recover and tourism and the resulting traffic resumed and the intersection again came to the forefront. The round -a /bout plans were reviewed by the county, the "v" developer, and the property owners of the homes on the south side of 30A . The round-a:bout plans required additional property from the owners of the northeast corner property who were also the owners of the homes to the south, These owners drew up an agreement with the county that 1) sold the county the needed land on the northeast corner Lot for approx. $100,000, 2) required the path to stay on the north side forever, 3) required the prop share fees for Alys Beach to be applied to the improvements and, 4) allowed a wall to be built on the south side of 30A (which was against the Comp Plan) and would require a variance (which they needed the county to assure them they would be approved,), These conditions have been paraphrased and may vary slightly but the gist of their requests are given. The county would not agree to all the conditions and the agreement was never executed by the two parties. As a temporary measure, the Sheriff's office was paid to place a sheriff deputy at the intersection during the 2013, 14 and 15 summer seasons. In 2015, the county public works Dept. Began to look at several different designs that did not need the land the round a bout needed. As the plans were being considered by the county, the owners of the northwest corner Lot and south 30A homes became involved in the process. They agreed to trade land (not asking the county to pay the $100,000 plus for area on the northeastern Lot), dropped their request for Alys Beach Prop Share application, dropped the request for a wall, and agreed to limit the path on the north side to 10 years. They presented an exhibit that showed the number of driveways and properties on the south side and highlighted several that had only a 10' separation from the road to their garages. These homes were built in the 1950/60's without the now required 20' front setbacks. The intersection design being reviwed included a traffic light, lighted hand signals for pedestrians and bikers, and a crossing at the intersection. The additional property to the northeast eliminated the need and cost (100,000 plus) to remove the large solid encased power pole located very close to that intersection. The BCC agreed to the intersection design with the property owners. Several people spoke against it as we recall. The agreement was signed and the sliver of property on the south side was abandoned and the property on the north was granted to the county. Work on 30A cannot occur during the summer tourism Months so design, and permitting, and utility locations and relocations must be lined up so that construction work can start after Labor Day and pushed to complete no later than Spring Break. . If any of these processes are delayed, construction is delayed another whole season. it is our understanding the construction is set to begin this September, 2017. We believe if the design is changed from what was approved in 2015/16 , the construction of the intersection improvements would be pushed to after the 2018 summer season. With the new 395 driveway coming out of the "v" condos and village market, traffic will be backed up waiting to turn left into the market parking lot; traffic will be backed up waiting to turn right into the Lot, the parking on the east side of 395 will. Be eliminated,,and people will be parking and backing out on 395 further down near Grove Ave, Bikes on 395 path will cross the new driveway creating conflicts. Cars now cannot easily exit West Or East Grove because of the back.ups. We believe the back ups will. Be worse with the popular restaurant on the corner. With the development (two restaurants, offices, and 8 condos, ) on the northwest corner of 395/30A without adequate parking and access management, that section of 395/30A will be more of a nightmare during summer season and it won't matter which side of the road the path is located, Some of the problems in these areas could be resolved if Walton Cty would reclaim the rights of way so adequate bike paths could be built, adopt access management policies and require shared frontage roads, A bold proposal has been submitted to the BCC by newly elected District 5 Commissioner. He asked the county attorney to bring a Special Magistrate process to Walton County land development hearings. Evidently, jones, Chapman, and Anderson think this is a good idea because they agreed such an ordinance could be brought back for public hearing.
A group of developers and and attorneys have been pushing this for years. When we looked at this during the 2004-2008 term, the decision was made not to move forward with it for many reasons. First, the Special Magistrate (SM) would be selected by the BCC. This person would have a lot of power over the development process taking the Commissioners out of the "real"decision making for land development proposals. The BCC would have the final say but only after they read the "report" written by the SM within a certain number of days and bring up changes at a subsequent meeting. Do we really think they would read the whole report on multiple projects and suggest they be brought back up? If the intent is to "take the politics out" why would they bring it back up? The SM would cost the taxpayers more money when the taxpayers voted to elect decisonmakers especially on land use issues. Land use issues affect home values, quality of life, and enjoyment of home, and that's what the citizens who have spent large sums of money on homes and investment properties expect. The SM , I Believe needs to be a land use attorney. Go find a local unbiased land use attorney that no one knows and one that cannot be influenced by 3 commissioners. Public input can be taken but would not be deemed substantial competent evidence in the SM's report. it would be "window dressing" to make the public think they were still being heard. Last but not least, the SM would be judging projects by the Comp Plan. And and Development Code which is similar to an old house that has been added onto room by room over the years without a plan. Nothing works. There are inconsistencies, vague language, broad land use categories, interpretive phrases, and basically a mess that can be twisted and turned to approve anything and still declare "it meets code". if you believe the "we are fixing the plan" line , you would be foolish. The BCC has been kicking the can down the road so long that fixing the plan will now include a "developer's bonanza". Last time the BCC "fixed " the code in 2011 , the Bcc fired the Director and paid a developer's planner about $90,000 to work in planning to "fix" the code. That person left after the code was "fixed". Commercial uses of high intensity were added to South Walton's land use categories for one. Zoning could help but that was not to be. History repeats itself. Now the Director of Planning is leaving and the race is on to hire a new one. Watch this process and who is hired because it will probably mean the "developer's " person is there to "fix" the code. They have three votes "jones, Anderson and Chapman" Why not? More Snappy Turtles don't exactly create the kind of jobs they tout to create. if there is any wonder why South Walton wants "walExit" (like Brexit) , why they want independence, self rule, and government by the people who live in their communities, then this proposal is the poster child. The BCC voted 2-1 in favor of the big box retail building known as Snappy Turtles #3 located on 30A and Dalton Drive. Commissioner Comander voted no saying it was incompatible. Cecilia Jones and Bill Chapman voted for approval without much comment on why they were voting for it. Nipper and Anderson were not allowed to vote because the hearing had been continued so long that the two had not been at the first hearing in October.
I feel bad for the folks living (now trying to live on Dalton) on Dalton because the truck, garbage and tourist traffic will surely drive through their neighborhood to avoid 30A. Attend a public hearing on Tuesday, January 10th starting at 2:30 p.m. at the South Walton Annex where the Board of County Commissioners will hear the continuance of the Snappy Turtle/ 30A Trading Co. Development. You would think all five commissioners would be voting but No! The county attorney has ruled that since the first part of the hearing was before the election, only the three commissioners who heard the first part of the development proposal will be able to hear the second part.and vote on a development proposal that will add yet another Snappy Turtle to 30A.
The developer attorney continued the hearing until after the election for medical reasons. We wish the attorney well but we do not believe this is correct on the part of the county. All citizens interested in 30A should attend this hearing and provide their testimony. The proposed development is located on the south side of 30A just west of the Eastern Lake bridge. You may remember this area as the failed Hampton Inn hotel area of 30A. Citizens, it is now up to you to determine the destiny of our beloved scenic 30A. Coney Island or the unique Beaches of South Walton ? |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories
All
|