Walton County board denies Dogwood/Lehi LLC parking variance, tells applicant to resubmit clearer plans

The Walton County Variance and Adjustment Board on the evening of the meeting denied a variance request from Dogwood/Lehi LLC that would have allowed side-access parking and use of an existing carriage house to meet required parking for a proposed home on a corner lot in the Old Seagrove neighborhood.

The denial came after neighbors and board members said the application materials were unclear and inconsistent with testimony from planning staff. Board members recommended the applicant return with a readable survey, explicit identification of the code sections needing variance relief, and a package tying testimony to the drawings.

The applicant's representative, Daryl Baker, described the property as two previously combined lots with an existing carriage house and a pool and said the owners had built the carriage house and pulled permits years earlier. "My name is Daryl Baker and, I'm the friends and representative of the owners at 271 West Grove," Baker said, explaining the carriage house predated the current code changes and that the owners sought to retain access and parking.

Planning staff flagged gaps between the narrative and the drawings. Matt Carpenter of the Planning Department said the application did not match the plan: "All they've asked for is to allow continued parking in the carriage house. So it looks like their request is incomplete compared to what they really think they're asking for." Board members repeatedly said the plan set and the testimony conflicted and that the scaled plans in the packet were too small to read.

Neighbors, including Shirley Garrett of the Old Seagrove Volunteer Neighborhood Association, urged denial. Garrett, who said she and 14 of 15 committee members signed a letter, warned the board against granting variances that would erode recently adopted neighborhood rules intended to limit density, curbside parking, and manage short-term rentals. "We are requesting... that you don't give the variance," Garrett said, citing concerns about parking shortages and the potential for increased rental occupancy and nuisance behavior.

Board members debated whether the carriage house and the planned demolition of the existing home presented a hardship. Several members said that if the house were to be torn down and the lots replatted, the applicant could design a new house and driveways that complied with the current Land Development Code. "I recommend you go back to the drawing board, get you a survey... present your request that he can put in the package that we understand what you're asking," the chair told the applicant.

After discussion the board moved to deny the variance. The board recorded its decision as a denial and instructed the applicant to refile if they wished to pursue a revised plan and clarified request.

The decision followed lengthy public comment and detailed staff discussion about which code sections were implicated, the carriage house's age relative to changes in the code, on‑site parking counts, and neighborhood compatibility. The board cited incomplete documentation and inconsistent testimony as the principal reasons supporting denial.

Next steps for the applicant are to submit a clear survey and plans that show exactly what relief is requested and to identify the specific Land Development Code provisions from which they seek variance, after which the Planning Department will place a complete submittal on a future agenda.