Commission recommends approval of New Hope Dunes (Old Shores) 99‑acre PUD; developer emphasizes open space and resort design

The Washington County Planning & Zoning Commission on Nov. 3 recommended approval of a small-scale future land-use amendment to establish a 99‑acre planned unit development (PUD) for a resort/golf village identified by the applicant as Old Shores (previously New Hope Dunes). The commission will forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for a decision on Nov. 13.

Applicant representatives (Blake Reese, director of development and founder, and Ellen Avery Smith, land-use attorney) presented the PUD concept and related site text policies. The presentation described the 99‑acre PUD as sited within a broader resort/golf ownership area the applicant variously described during the meeting (applicant referenced both a 1,400‑acre project and a larger 4,400‑acre ownership boundary). The PUD plan submitted shows a village peninsula bordered by water features and golf amenities; the applicant said the design emphasizes compact, walkable development with extensive preserved open space and private on‑site roads and utilities.

Key policy details included in the applicant’s text proposals, as summarized by counsel, were a maximum residential density of up to five units per acre, a minimum of 2% of total land area devoted to commercial uses, and standards for building setbacks, landscape and pedestrian connections tailored to the PUD. The applicant said permitted uses would be resort‑related residential units (ownership and rental), employee housing, lodging, golf amenities, restaurants and accessory uses related to a master‑planned resort community.

During public comment, Steven Storley, a downtown Chipley business owner, urged support on economic grounds and said the project could bring tourism and construction jobs to the area. Commissioners asked procedural and naming questions (one commissioner noted the county already has a Long Lake Ridge subdivision and suggested the applicant consider naming), and asked about the difference between subdivisions and a PUD; staff confirmed subdivisions and development‑review submittals will follow separate review processes once the PUD map and text are approved.

Planning staff recommended approval and noted public noticing requirements were met; the commission moved, seconded and approved the staff recommendation on a roll call vote. The recommendation will go to the Board of County Commissioners, which is scheduled to consider the amendment on Nov. 13.

Outstanding items for the BOCC hearing and later development‑review submittals include: detailed development‑review applications for specific village parcels, subdivision reviews for future residential phases (subdivisions over 20 units require separate review), final engineering, and any conditions the BOCC may require on infrastructure, phasing, or dedicated mitigation funds. The applicant emphasized that many on‑site roads and utilities will be private, and that certain standards (setbacks, materials, pedestrian design) will be defined in the PUD text policies submitted with the map change.