Walton County orders full review of archaeological‑preserve permitting after residents raise tower concerns
Loading...
Summary
After sustained public comment alleging deed and DRI violations, Walton County commissioners directed planning staff to conduct a full historical review of permitting and approvals for a cell‑tower site inside the Sandestin DRI and to brief the board before processing any permanent tower application.
The Walton County Board of County Commissioners on a December meeting directed planning staff to complete a full review of historic permitting for a parcel identified as an archaeological preserve inside the Sandestin DRI after multiple residents alleged the site was improperly used for a cell tower.
Tabitha Howard, who addressed the board during the citizen‑request portion of the agenda, presented a packet of deeds and photos and told commissioners the parcel was conveyed with restrictions to remain an archaeological preserve and should not host a cell tower. "Until Sandestin is in compliance I think the cell tower shouldn't be there," she said, adding she found a second tower in place and documentation she said conflicts with the deeds.
County counsel and planning staff gave the board context. Counsel noted an initial county permit for a tower was approved in 2005 and explained that, under local procedures, those approvals can create vested rights if not timely challenged. Planning staff said a temporary tower was approved earlier to maintain Verizon service and that an application has been filed to replace the temporary structure with a permanent tower. Staff told the board they had paused processing of the current application to review records and consult with legal.
To resolve the immediate question, the board directed planning to conduct a full written review that includes: the 2005 application and hearing, any deed language or DRI references to open space for the parcel, the 2024 temporary approval, and any subsequent permitting history. Planning will brief the board on its findings before proceeding with the current processing of the permanent tower application.
The board's direction is procedural: it does not vacate any previously issued permits nor does it adjudicate whether past approvals were lawful. County counsel repeatedly warned commissioners that decades‑old approvals not appealed at the time generally create vested rights and that moving to block or unilaterally suspend services could expose the county to legal claims. Counsel also noted ongoing litigation related to DRI issues and said some matters may ultimately be resolved by a court.
The review is expected to cover the chain of deeds, prior board minutes, and the administrative record for each permit or development order on file. Commissioners asked staff to return with a concise briefing on where permitting decisions were made and whether any procedural steps were missed.
