Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Walton County board continues three hearings, reviews spa setback variance at Santa Rosa Beach property

3212122 · April 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Walton County Board of Adjustment on April 24 continued three variance hearings to May 22 and heard a public presentation on a spa setback variance at 324 East Seahorse in Santa Rosa Beach.

The Walton County Board of Adjustment on April 24 continued three variance hearings to its May 22 meeting and heard a public presentation on a spa setback variance at 324 East Seahorse in Santa Rosa Beach.

The board unanimously approved motions to continue the Barfield variance, the Boyd variance and an appeal identified as the "Serendipity" appeal to the ZBA meeting on May 22, 2025, after staff said applicants were redesigning work or requested more time.

The meeting then moved to the JJLM Golf House variance, a request to approve by final order for a pool/spa that staff said encroaches on the required 15-foot zoning setback. Britney Paradigm, a representative of Cox Pools, told the board the pool and spa were originally built in February 2004 and that "I would love to tell you that I know exactly why it happened, but I don't." Paradigm said the coping used on the spa is nine inches long and that a likely mismeasurement from the inside edge of the spa led to the encroachment. "It's 9 inches," she said about the portion extending into the setback.

Planning staff entered the staff report into the record. Board members asked how the issue came to the county's attention after two decades; staff said the encroachment was reported in August during a re-permitting process when the property was being sold and title companies flagged the open permit. Staff also said the then-current purchaser was completing the purchase and had applied to re-permit and close the permit if the variance were awarded.

Board members discussed hardship and precedent. One member characterized the situation as a hardship created by changes in zoning and by the fact the pool's permit was not closed earlier; another member said the board has denied more recent cases where pools were constructed and required relocation. The applicant's representative said the pool has been sold several times and that Cox Pools did not install the present owner's spa.

The transcript records a motion to deny during the JJLM presentation, but the record provided does not include a clear final vote tally or outcome for that specific variance motion. The record does show the three continuances to May 22, 2025 were approved by voice vote.

The board closed public discussion on the JJLM variance and entered the staff report into the record; several board members expressed frustration that related permit and measurement issues were only identified years after construction. The board adjourned at the end of the session and noted the ZBA will reconvene on May 22, 2025, for the continued items.