Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freeport council approves Bay View PDP with conditions after stormwater, traffic and buffer concerns
Summary
After hours of testimony and public comment, the City of Freeport approved a 27.75‑acre Bay View preliminary planned development (PDP) resolution, directing staff to require detailed stormwater and traffic review and a community meeting on buffering; the measure passed 2–1.
The City of Freeport council voted June 9 to approve a 27.75‑acre preliminary planned development (PDP) for the Bay View property with conditions requiring detailed technical reviews and neighborhood coordination.
Planning staff told the council the site includes a five‑acre lake historically used for catfish farming and that the PDP is a conceptual entitlement; technical engineering, stormwater, traffic and wetland work will occur at the development application phase. Planning staff said the project does not request zoning changes but does seek variances for setbacks and lot sizes.
Residents and nearby homeowners raised repeated concerns about drainage, flooding and an increase in impervious surface coverage. "Zoning exists for a reason," said Keith Blanchard, who asked the council to keep the current zoning and criticized the repeated use of variances. Several speakers showed photos of flooding in nearby Hammock Bay and urged caution about culvert sizing and downstream impacts.
The project engineer told the council the team conducted an environmental assessment and a topographic (bathymetric) survey of the lake, noting a few small isolated wetlands and that the lake would be used as a stormwater facility with a control structure. The engineer said the project must meet Northwest Florida Water Management District nutrient removal requirements for discharge to the nearby bay, which are more stringent than the city's code.
Applicant Chris Klesa, who said he and his family plan to invest in the property and operate a restaurant, told the council he has met with neighbors and does not plan late‑night concerts. "I'm not going to put money into something that is not going to do well," Klesa said, describing outreach with nearby homeowners and pledging daytime, family‑oriented uses for the restaurant and public park elements.
Council members pressed for specifics. Councilwoman Brandon said she was not yet persuaded the setbacks and impervious coverage deviations were necessary. Councilman Ferris and other members sought and obtained explicit conditions: staff must ensure a focused stormwater and traffic technical review that addresses ingress/egress and pedestrian safety, technical review must evaluate noise impacts of the proposed commercial use, and the applicant must hold a community meeting to resolve buffer and privacy‑fence requests along the northern boundary. Planning staff confirmed there is no entitlement to variances from water management district requirements and that any wetland fills would be handled through the district's permitting process.
The motion to approve the PDP resolution with those conditions passed 2–1: Councilwoman Hafner and Councilman Ferris voted yes; Councilwoman Brandon voted no.
Next steps: staff will conduct the technical reviews described by council and the applicant will proceed to the development application phase where engineering details, wetland permitting and any necessary variance justifications will be resolved.
