By SKYLA CARTERThe Washington County Planning Commission voted Monday, August 3 to recommend denial of a special‑exception request for the proposed Scenic RV Park and later heard residents’ concerns about data‑center development and county land‑use standards.
The proposed development on Highway 77 would include up to 115 RV sites. Because the property’s current land‑use designation does not permit the project, the developer sought a special exception. Monday’s vote marked the second time the proposal has been turned down—following an earlier denial in June by both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
The developer submitted revised documents approximately 40 minutes prior to the meeting, and commissioners said they did not have adequate time to review them, declining to accept the materials into evidence.
Developer attorney Mike Burke said the park is intended to serve Class A RV campers and would include amenities such as a pond, aimed at encouraging guests to remain on the property.
Residents again voiced concerns about traffic, noise, lighting, trespassing, and the number of visitors the park could bring to the rural community. Resident Monte Webb estimated the campground could bring more than 200 people to the site at one time, and questioned whether visitors would remain within the development.
Planning Commission member John Gay said commissioners did not have enough information to make an informed decision.
“We don’t have enough information to make a good decision,” Gay said. “There is no way in the world I could vote for it because I don’t have a plan that shows me what I’m voting on.”
Because the special exception was denied, the developer cannot submit another application for the project for two years. The recommendation will now be forwarded to the Washington County Board of County Commissioners, which is scheduled to meet Aug. 20.
The Planning Commission also approved a small-scale Future Land Use Map amendment for 77 Ministries, changing the property’s designation from Residential Low to General Commercial to allow for the development of a childcare center at 4135 Pine Log Road in Chipley. The request will now go before the Washington County Board of County Commissioners for final consideration.
During public comment, Sunny Hills resident Ken Attard referenced a July 30 memorandum from County Attorney Matthew Fuqua while raising concerns about the Planning Commission’s handling of proposed Land Development Code changes related to data centers. The memorandum, included on the meeting agenda but not discussed earlier in the evening, outlines the legal standards commissioners must follow when acting in a quasi‑judicial capacity and emphasizes that decisions must be based on competent, substantial evidence and established regulations.
Attard said portions of the draft data‑center language appeared inconsistent with those standards, pointing out that the document referenced the Calhoun County Comprehensive Plan instead of Washington County’s.
“We just got on to that guy for not giving us the information we needed, and we’ve got misinformation here,” Attard said. He also questioned who drafted and reviewed the language and whether it had been compared against Washington County’s comprehensive plan
Chipley resident Jim Futch spoke next, saying he had also reviewed Fuqua’s memorandum and believed the county would need to amend its comprehensive plan before adopting a moratorium on data‑center development.
Chairman Gay responded that the Planning Commission had not planned to discuss data centers during the meeting and said he was unsure why residents believed the topic would be addressed.
“I’m not real sure where you got the idea that we were going to discuss data centers tonight,” Gay said. “We’re not.”
Futch responded by saying the posted agenda materials led him—and other residents—to believe the Planning Commission would be discussing data‑center regulations.
“It was on the original agenda that we’d seen,” Futch said. “That’s what a lot of people are here for.”
When Futch added that the information had appeared on a website, Gay said it was incorrect.
“That was misinformation,” Gay said.
Resident Sheryl Cummins then questioned how residents were expected to know when proposed Land Development Code changes related to data centers would be addressed.
“It was all over everything that it was tonight,” Cummins said.
Gay responded that the information had only appeared on one website and was not posted on the county’s website.
“It was never on our website,” Gay said. “You can always check our website. You can always call the planning department and ask. Don’t believe everything you see on Facebook.”
Cummins noted that she does not use Facebook.
Gay said the agenda item did not specifically identify data centers.
“What the agenda says is ‘proposed LDC changes for discussion,’” Gay said. “It doesn’t mention a thing about data centers.”
He added that the Planning Commission had not intended to discuss data centers during the meeting.
“We never intended to discuss data centers, and we’re not going to discuss the data centers tonight,” Gay said.
Gay said broader Land Development Code discussions generally occur later in the year, typically during December and January, and encouraged residents to monitor the county’s website for future meeting information.
Later in the meeting, County Planner Dawn McDonald clarified that the draft Land Development Code language was not a final proposal but a working document meant to inform future recommendations and identify potential updates.
McDonald said data centers had become a topic of discussion after the Board of County Commissioners considered a potential one‑year moratorium on data‑center development. The moratorium, she said, would allow time to evaluate possible code language, determine whether Comprehensive Plan changes may be needed, and gather public input through the proper process.
“We want a thoughtful approach,” McDonald said, noting that any future changes would need to be properly advertised and reviewed before formal consideration.
She emphasized that the draft document was not something the Planning Commission could act on because it had not been advertised and was not a final version. It was described as a starting point for identifying inconsistencies, reviewing existing code language, and developing recommendations for future amendments.
McDonald also noted that the county typically reviews Land Development Code changes annually, with proposed amendments generally advertised later in the year and adoption typically occurring in December or January. The county had recently approved changes in May related to work with the Florida Department of Emergency Management and the Building Department, and additional time was needed before considering further updates.
Under the draft language, data centers would be permitted only by special exception within the Industrial Future Land Use Map category on parcels containing at least 100 contiguous acres. The proposal would also require a 5,000‑foot separation between data‑center developments and residential future‑land‑use areas—a standard that would not be eligible for a variance.
Applicants would be required to demonstrate adequate electrical, telecommunications, water, and wastewater infrastructure; submit studies addressing traffic, noise, and water demand; comply with applicable stormwater and environmental regulations; and provide a minimum 100‑foot landscaped buffer around the site. The amendment would also allow the County Commission to impose additional conditions necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
If brought forward for consideration, the Planning Commission would review the proposed amendment and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, which would have final authority over whether to adopt the changes.
The Planning Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 14.
AMBER PATINO 
Staff Report