By DOTTY NIST
Rezoning requests coming before the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at the end of February did not fare well.
The Krupp Rezoning, heard on Feb. 22, and the Sundial-WSRB LLC Small Scale Amendment (SSA) with Rezoning, heard on Feb. 24, both encountered opposition and were denied by the BCC.
The South Walton Annex was the location for both meetings.
Krupp Rezoning
The Krupp Rezoning was a request on behalf of Philip Krupp to change the current zoning district from Conservation Residential one unit per 2.5 acres to Conservation Residential two units per acre on approximately 20 acres located off Nellie Drive north of Chat Holley Road.
The request came forward with Walton County Planning and Development Services Director Mac Carpenter stating that it was not a proposal that was supported by county planning staff. He explained that on the two parcels included in the request, there are approximately nine acres of wetlands and that a significant portion of the two parcels is within a Special Flood Hazard Area. He noted that there are policies in the Walton County Comprehensive Plan (CP) that discourage increases in density in a flood zone or special flood hazard area.
Representing the applicants, attorney Stephen Tatum confirmed that the property is 19.56 acres with possibly 9.2 acres of wetlands and 10.3 acres of uplands. He disagreed with Carpenter’s statement regarding the CP discouraging increases in density, saying that this applies to future land use map changes but not to this request, because rather than a future land use map change, a (zoning district) change from Conservation Residential one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres to Conservation Residential two units per acre was being requested.
Tatum also told the commissioners that the subject property has been in the Krupp family since 1973, two years before there were any density provisions in county code and also before the adoption of Walton County’s first comprehensive plan in the mid-1990s.
He explained that his clients do not intend to develop the property themselves but would sell it and that the developer purchasing it would apply for a development order.
Tatum stated that what the applicants are requesting is “a very low density zoning district.” He said there was no intent to impact the wetlands on the site and that the homes would be clustered on the uplands.
Tatum said the site plan the applicants had presented to the BCC would provide 61 percent open space, most of which would be in the wetlands.
He noted that under the current zoning seven houses would be possible on the property—and that the reason for the rezoning request is to increase the value of the property because more homes would be allowed. Tatum argued that with only seven houses allowed, the price of the houses would be “astronomically high,” not affordable, and not fitting in with the area.
Tatum said the plan would be to have houses in the $400,000-$450,000 price range that would provide more inventory for the housing market and help address the housing shortage.
Turning to traffic, he said the applicants’ traffic study shows that there would be an increase from eight trips during the p.m. peak hour to 39 trips. Their environmental assessment, he continued, does not show any threatened or endangered species on the property.
Addressing warnings about a “domino effect” of nearby parcels requesting rezonings, Tatum said many of those will not be requesting rezoning because they do not have upland area to be developed. He also noted that the property would be designed to 100-year storm drainage standards and discussed properties and subdivisions in the vicinity with similar and higher densities.
Among the approximately two dozen citizens addressing the BCC in opposition to the rezoning at the meeting was neighboring resident Margaret Landry, also speaking on behalf of the South Walton Community Council (SWCC). Landry was of the opinion that neighboring property owners should reasonably be able to expect that the zoning of properties near their homes that was in place when they purchased should stay the same.
Landry credited a real estate agent marketing his properties in the area as “prime for rezoning” as being a driving force for rezonings in the Chat Holley Road area.
“We are concerned about flooding, stormwater, mandatory evacuations, traffic, domino effect, wildlife corridor and wetlands protection,” Landry told the officials.
South Walton County resident Bob Brooke was another of the residents speaking in opposition. He pointed out that approval of the rezoning would allow for a “five times increase in density,” so that instead of only seven houses being allowed on the buildable area of the property, there would be the opportunity for 35 houses on the same area.
“I think this is a perfect example of the kinds of things that are out of control when the county gets proposals for zoning changes and master plan changes and land use changes,” Brooke said, “so I would urge you to vote no on this change.”
Among a few people speaking in favor of the rezoning was real estate agent Jim Ball. Calling the rezoning “modest,” Ball told the commissioners that it would “make sense” to put density near the public facilities that are to be developed nearby on the acreage that the county and the school district had purchased in the Chat Holley Road area, so that people will be able to travel by bicycle and walking rather than having to drive on the main roads.
Walton County Commission Chairman Mike Barker commented that he had an issue with increasing density in the absence of extenuating circumstances just to give property more value for resale, especially in a case in which staff is recommending against a rezoning. He also observed that while there is a need for housing in Walton County, not all of that has to be provided in south Walton County. “There’s a lot of property in other parts of the county, and there’s plenty of room for housing,” Barker said.
District 2 Commissioner Danny Glidewell called the proposed rezoning an example of “spot zoning,” which he said the county should not be doing. He observed that the Chat Holley Road area had always flooded with a hard rain or even less and warned that approving this increased density would make it worse.
Glidewell saw no reason to approve the rezoning other than “to make somebody some money.” He questioned what the cost of approving it would be to neighbors with flooding of their yards and impairment of functioning of their septic tanks. “Who is going to pay for that? Certainly not the developer,” Glidewell warned.
His motion to deny the rezoning carried with all aye votes, resulting in failure of the rezoning.
Sundial-WSRB LLC Small Scale Amendment (SSA) with Rezoning
Sundial-WSRB LLC Small Scale Amendment (SSA) with Rezoning, the amendment/rezoning request heard on Feb. 24, involved the proposed rezoning of a residential parcel for warehouse use.
This was a request to change the future land use from Residential to Industrial and Extractive Uses and the zoning district from Neighborhood Infill to Light Industrial on 4.85 vacant acres located on CR-393 South, approximately 0.4 mile south of U.S. 98 in Santa Rosa Beach.
Introducing the request, Carpenter explained that light industrial uses border the property to the north and east—and that to the south the county had approved a residential development. He added that state forest essentially borders the property to the west.
Carpenter said the property is substantially covered in wetlands with a small amount of uplands.
He defined the policy question before the BCC as whether Light Industrial zoning should be moved further south of U.S. 98 toward CR-30A.
Representing the applicants, engineer David Smith spoke about the reason for the request. He explained that the applicants own existing Light Industrial located along CR-393 and have the goal of expanding the same use to the south onto the subject property along CR-393, a warehouse use.
Smith confirmed that there are wetlands on the western portion of the property and said that the intent would be to cluster the development on the eastern portion.
Smith emphasized that there is a need for light industrial south of the bay. He listed warehouse tenants for the applicants’ existing light industrial property, which included a florist, pool keepers, artists, and a vacation management company. “So this is not heavy industrial,” Smith said. He said there had been no noise code violations associated with the existing use and that this type of use was the same as what was proposed for the subject property.
Asked about impacts to the wetlands, Smith said the goal would be to impact less than half an acre of wetlands.
District 1 Commissioner Boots McCormick said his only concern would be that the requested rezoning would open the door to some extractive uses and that he would have a problem with such uses in that area.
Smith responded that there was no intent for any extractive uses and that the only intent was for light industrial similar to what he had described.
“However,” District 2 Commissioner Danny Glidewell commented, “once you change the land use, you’re opening the door to Pandora’s box, and the county has no guarantee that…your client would continue to own this property.”
He stated that the requested land use would allow for almost anything, including a clay pit. “And that’s…a big ask for us to change the zoning from residential all the way to industrial, that’s a hard ask,” Glidewell said.
Smith expressed willingness to have the request conditionally approved so that the commissioners would be confident that the applicants would do exactly what they had said they would do on the property. He said a borrow pit would not be feasible in any case on the property because more land would be needed.
Steve Hall, county land use attorney, clarified that the kind of uses that McCormick and Glidewell had raised questions about would not be allowed with the proposed rezoning. Light Industrial, he explained, would allow for general commercial uses, public uses, civic uses, artisanal uses and renewable uses as well as light industrial uses as opposed to what would be allowed in the standard Industrial zoning category.
Glidewell brought up another concern, that people who had bought property to the south had bought with the understanding that this property next to them was residential. He mentioned the possibility of those people’s property values being reduced with industrial being approved next to them.
In response, Smith provided some information on the residential property and the development to the south of the subject property. He said this was a multi-family development known as Ashley Place. Going into some history, Smith provided copies of an agreement between the applicants and the previous owner of the property to the south, an agreement by the applicants to vacate two easements and a consent by the owner of the property to the south to the proposed rezoning. He acknowledged that he was aware that the current owner had not known of the agreement and that the agreement did not extend the consent to subsequent owners.
Smith clarified that Ashley Place is currently under construction but said that no one lives on that property at this time.
Following up on Smith’s comments about the possibility of conditional approval limiting uses, Carpenter said that developer agreements limiting allowable uses and providing development controls are considered from time to time—but that no such proposal had been presented with this request. He said staff would be willing to review such an agreement if directed to do so by the BCC.
However, Clay Adkinson, acting county attorney, pointed out that the process with developer agreements is an involved one requiring public hearings. Luke Andrews, co-owner of the property to the south, said the Ashley Place property owners had not known about the rezoning request before they purchased their property and would not have made the purchase if they had been aware of the proposal.
He said the Ashley Place units would be high-end units and would be “a great product.” Andrews observed that the occupants of the existing warehouses on the applicants’ other property do include artists, flower shops and similar uses but also custom furniture shops, woodwork shops and similar uses. He said that some of those uses would cause “heartburn” for the Ashley Place owners close to their residential development.
In response to a question, Smith said the applicants had not yet closed on the subject property and that the closing was not contingent on approval of the rezoning request.
He discussed that a 25-foot buffer would be provided by the applicants from the property to the south with landscaping and plantings and said that the applicants would do their part to work with the adjoining property owners.
Questioned about the proximity of the subject property to the beach, Smith estimated a distance of two miles.
District 5 Commissioner Tony Anderson voiced concern about putting more industrial within such a short distance from the beach. He said he would probably not be worried about the request were the property closer to U.S. 98. While aware of existing light industrial uses a similar distance to the beach, Anderson said he would be “a little bit leery” about continuing to move south with light industrial.
Anderson was also concerned about traffic safety with regard to trucks delivering to the warehouses due to the proximity of the property to Ridge Road, a busy road with visibility issues.
Glidewell was in agreement, adding that he did not feel it would be fair to the residential property to the south to approve the change to a light industrial use on the subject property. The approval, he reasoned, could hurt the residential property values and limit the ability to sell the housing units. He moved to deny the request, with District 4 Commissioner Trey Nick seconding.
The motion to deny was approved 4-1, with McCormick voting no. This resulted in failure of the rezoning request.