Walton County adopts Old Seagrove neighborhood plan after two years of debate, redraws boundary for three parcels

Walton County commissioners voted 3-2 on Feb. 27 to adopt a neighborhood plan for Old Seagrove, a South Walton neighborhood, approving new rules on building heights, setbacks, tree protection and limits on bedrooms in newly built short-term rental units while redrawing the plan boundary to exclude a small group of parcels near County Road 30A.

The plan, shepherded by neighborhood volunteers over roughly two years and presented by the county planning department, proposes reduced building heights, increased setbacks, tree-protection standards and new limits on bedrooms in newly constructed short‑term rental (STR) units intended to curb large rental houses that residents say have harmed neighborhood character and public safety.

Supporters told commissioners the plan reflects months of meetings and broad neighborhood backing and cited vote totals they said met the county code’s thresholds. Shirley Garrett, who represented the Old Seagrove planning committee, said the group had a long volunteer effort and that “85% of those who voted voted yes” and that the committee had sought what it considers a fair compromise to protect the neighborhood’s character. Garrett and other proponents said the plan would preserve trees, reduce congestion and slow the construction of so‑called “mega‑rentals.”

Opponents, including multiple property owners whose lots fall within or near the proposed plan area, asked commissioners to exclude their parcels or to alter the plan. Several speakers who own property on County Road 30A argued their lots are physically different (they include partial lots and prior lot splits) and said the plan would dramatically reduce their ability to develop or sell their property. Jane Solomon and Mary Solomon, whose family owns parcels included in the plan boundary as first proposed, urged commissioners to remove their parcels, saying the plan would “devalue our property” and was unfair to longstanding owners.

Planning staff and the plan consultant outlined several options commissioners could adopt: (a) adopt the plan as presented, (b) redraw the boundary to remove specified parcels (the option adopted), (c) allow replatting for certain parcels while keeping them in the plan, (d) change plan text to exempt specific parcels from height and setback limits, or (e) a combination of text changes and replatting. Consultant Kristen Shell told the board the neighborhood planning committee recommended adoption “as is” but that redrawing the boundary was a cleaner technical approach if commissioners wished to exclude specific lots.

County Attorney Atkinson told commissioners the plan satisfied the procedural thresholds in the county code to reach the Board for consideration but warned about legal risk under recent state law changes. He said neighborhood plans previously were harder to challenge under the Bert J. Harris Jr. Act, but amendments to state law in 2021 broadened remedies for property owners who claim a law or regulation deprived them of expected property value. Atkinson recommended the board consider whether parcels proposed for inclusion are “similarly situated” to others in the plan area and said redrawing the boundary to remove parcels with materially different lot characteristics would reduce litigation risk. He also reminded the board that variances and plat law remain available to landowners and that recorded plats create separate legal protections.

After more than three hours of discussion and public comment, a motion to adopt the plan with a boundary redraw that excluded the Johnson and Thorpe parcels and a small county‑owned sliver was approved 3-2. Commissioners expressed the tension between protecting property rights and preserving neighborhood character; the winning motion reflected a compromise intended to preserve most of the neighborhood plan while removing parcels most frequently cited by speakers as mismatched to the proposed rules.

The plan’s adoption does not ban existing STRs or immediately change existing homes; it applies to new construction and to development actions following the plan’s adoption. Staff and the county attorney said the code’s variance process remains available to property owners who claim hardship under the new rules, and planning staff noted some parcels that have unusual historical lot splits may need replatting to clarify development rights.

What’s next: implementation steps include final ordinance drafting and codification in the land development code, and the county said departments will track follow‑up items spelled out by staff. Atkinson’s remarks mean the county may face post‑adoption legal challenges; he advised that adopting an explicit boundary redraw and documenting the board’s legal rationale will strengthen the county’s record if challenged.

Votes at a glance - Old Seagrove Neighborhood Plan (second reading, land‑development code overlay adopting new neighborhood regulations, boundary redrawn to exclude specified parcels): approved 3-2. The board adopted the plan using the option to redraw the plan boundary to remove the Johnson and Thorpe parcels and a county‑owned sliver adjacent to those parcels. (Motion text as recorded at the meeting: adopt plan with exclusions/redraw; mover/second not recorded in transcript; vote tally recorded as yes:3, no:2.)

Speakers in this discussion included neighborhood representatives, long‑time residents and county staff. The main public voices were Shirley Garrett (Old Seagrove neighborhood committee), Jane Solomon and Mary Solomon (property owners opposing inclusion), and dozens of neighborhood supporters and detractors who spoke during the public comment period. County planning staff (Matt Carpenter) and the plan consultant (Kristen Shell) presented technical background; County Attorney Atkinson delivered legal guidance about statutory risk.

Ending The plan represents a compromise between residents seeking protection for Old Seagrove’s character and property owners who said the rules would limit their development rights. The county will publish the adopted ordinance language and staff said it will field questions about replatting, variance requests and next steps; opponents indicated they are reviewing their legal options.