Lynn Haven approves Bay Breeze Shores development order pending Bay County road approval

The Lynn Haven City Commission on March 25 conditionally approved a development order for Bay Breeze Shores, a proposed 3.67-acre residential project at 1817 Baybreeze Drive that would build 19 duplexes (38 units), provided Bay County grants the necessary driveway/access permit for Grassy Point Road.

The project drew more than an hour of testimony from neighbors, engineers and the developer before the commission voted to approve with the condition that Bay County approve road access. Opponents pressed the commission on traffic safety at the Grassy Point/State Road 77 intersection, local water pressure and sewer lift-station capacity, FEMA flood-zone changes and the presence of protected bird species.

City Planner Amanda (staff) introduced the application as “an application for a development order for Bay Breeze Shores,” and said the site’s future land-use designation is High Density Residential, which allows 8–20 dwelling units per acre. Amanda told the commission the parcel is about 3.67 acres and the applicant proposes 19 duplexes, for 38 total units. She also said Bay County will issue a driveway access permit if the commission approves the development order and that the project includes a $19,500 tree-mitigation payment to the city to offset trees removed.

Neighbors and homeowners‑association representatives detailed specific concerns. William Flynn, representing the Cashelmarra homeowners, told the commission the neighborhood’s water and sewage systems lack sufficient capacity for additional development and cited a consulting report showing current fire-flow shortfalls. John Gronbeck, representing Millpointe Landing HOA, said recent FEMA map changes raised the base flood elevation for the area (from AE 7 to AE 12) and argued that would require substantially higher finished‑floor elevations or houses built on pilings. Multiple residents described frequent wildlife sightings on and near the site, including large birds and deer, and some witnesses said they had observed birds they identified as bald eagles or ospreys.

Developer representatives and the applicant’s attorney disputed claims that wildlife or flood-zone issues blocked the project. Attorney Julie Sombathy told the commission that the law requires elected bodies to respect property owners’ development rights and that the application met city requirements: “The law requires you to prioritize my client's property rights here,” she said, arguing the city lacks jurisdiction to deny development on the basis of alleged bald‑eagle sightings without state or federal findings. Project engineer Brad Harris (KB Engineering) and other consultants described plan changes since the planning‑commission review, including adjustments to the stormwater pond and removal of a previously proposed emergency access spur off Cashelmarra.

The planning commission had recommended denial at its January 7 meeting, citing “too many moving parts,” including access, potential litigation and stormwater questions. At the city hearing several residents reiterated litigation over a small parcel that had been included in earlier plans; the developer’s attorney said the sliver has been returned and that related claims have been dismissed or moved to dismissal.

Commission discussion moved through three formal steps: a motion to table the item (made and seconded), a subsequent motion to approve that initially failed, and a final motion to approve contingent on Bay County approving the road/access. The final conditional approval carried after roll-call votes; the commission formally recorded the condition that the county approve driveway/access permitting before the development could proceed.

The commission did not impose additional city conditions requiring road widening or specific timing for infrastructure upgrades; however, staff and consultants said building permits and utility plan reviews would require verification of fire flow and sewer capacity before vertical construction. Amanda told commissioners that if building permits show fire‑flow below the city’s 1,000‑gallon‑per‑minute guideline, the fire inspector would require sprinklers for the structures.

Next steps: the developer must secure the county driveway/access permit and then satisfy routine building‑permit and utility reviews; the city’s approval is conditioned on that county action. If County permitting or subsequent permit reviews require substantial changes, the developer may need to return to the commission for new approvals or modifications.

Votes at the meeting: the commission first tabled the item, an initial motion to approve failed on roll call, and a later motion to approve with the condition that Bay County approve the road passed (final tally recorded in the formal action below).