🏗️ Developers argue the asphalt plant meets county zoning and must be approved as a “use by right.”
🌱 Opponents say the project poses environmental and safety risks, urging denial or alternative land uses.
⚖️ The dispute now heads to a magistrate review, leaving the final decision unresolved.
FREEPORT — A proposal to reopen an asphalt plant along State Highway 20 in Walton County drew hours of testimony, legal sparring, and audience frustration on Aug. 14, as planning commissioners weighed whether the controversial project meets county rules or threatens nearby neighborhoods.
The application, filed by Baker Engineers LLC on behalf of Highway 20 Properties LLC, requests a development order for a hot mix asphalt plant on 15.3 acres zoned heavy industrial.
The site, west of Freeport, once hosted an asphalt facility that ceased full-scale operations around 2010 but continued inspections and permitting through 2021, according to state records.
Attorney Gary Shipman, representing the developer, repeatedly told the commission that the decision must rest solely on whether the proposal complies with the Walton County Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.
“A development order is a legal process,” Shipman said. “If we meet the rules, we get to do it. And what we’re doing here is demonstrating that we meet the rules. Those rules are in the comprehensive plan and land development code. Period.”
Shipman argued that the county has no authority to reject the project on environmental grounds because the state preempts regulation of asphalt plant emissions. He emphasized that the proposed plant would run on natural gas rather than diesel fuel.
“There is less regulation of it if it is natural gas, because natural gas doesn’t pollute. It’s clean burning,” Shipman said.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, natural gas was the cause of about 33% of methane emissions and about 4% of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2021.
Jeff Howell, co-owner of Southeast Asphalt, told commissioners his company already operates a plant in Geneva, Alabama, but hauling asphalt from that distance to Walton County projects is not feasible.
“Really, 45 to 50 miles is kind of pushing out a boundary,” Howell testified. “After that, it significantly cools, which makes it harder to place.”
He explained the proposed plant’s operations step by step, showing photos of cold feed bins, heating drums, silos, and truck loading.
“Basically, once it gets into the system, it’s a closed system,” he said.
Howell acknowledged asphalt has an odor but said complaints at his Alabama facility have been rare.
“I’m not going to say that if you don’t roll your window down right in front of the plant, you won’t smell it … but I don’t know that we’ve had any complaints at our plant in Geneva.”
The applicant’s case leaned on testimony from hired specialists.
Melissa Ward, a certified planner, said the zoning allows asphalt plants as a “use by right.” “It is not a conditional use, meaning it cannot be denied if it meets the code and plan,” she told commissioners.
Scott Singletary, an ecologist, said his environmental assessment found no threatened species and confirmed the site’s 1.6 acres of wetlands would remain unimpacted.
Allen Thompson, a professional engineer, noted that asphalt plants were delisted as primary air pollution sources in 2002. He stated that the project would utilize baghouse filters to capture dust and would undergo state performance testing.
Michelle Baker, a civil engineer, conducted a traffic study showing about 15 peak-hour trips and no need for turn lanes. She said the Florida Department of Transportation reviewed and approved her report.
Baker testified that the plant would make about 15 trips during peak hours, with trucks mostly tarped to control odors. “The amount of traffic during the pm peak hour was minimal,” she said
Shipman repeatedly reminded commissioners that the hearing was quasi-judicial, limited to whether the project meets the county’s comprehensive plan and land development code. “If we meet the rules, we get to do,” he said. “Those rules are in the comprehensive plan and land development code. Period”
That narrow framing drew sharp exchanges with commissioners and the public. At one point, Shipman asked a commissioner to recuse himself after the official questioned what it would be like to live near an asphalt plant.
Frustration boiled over as Chair Kyla Jacobsen threatened to have disruptive audience members removed. “If the audience can’t be quiet … I’m going to have the bailiff remove everyone who’s not sworn to give testimony,” she warned
Opponents organized under the Protect the Emerald Coast Alliance presented a coordinated challenge. Group president John Janazzo, a civil engineer and former Okaloosa County commissioner, argued the project would bring “critical safety risk and serious environmental concerns.”
Janazzo submitted a 25-point document citing county code and common-sense reasons for denial, urging officials to negotiate with the landowners for a more compatible use. “
Reasonable people, equally well informed, will come to the same conclusion — the (hot mix asphalt) plant should not be approved for the proposed location,” Janazzo said.
The group sought party status to gain more legal standing in the process, but Shipman objected, arguing that being a nonprofit did not grant special rights.
Commissioners acknowledged the confusion that presented itself multiple times throughout the meeting, with Planning Commissioner Kristin Drohan saying, “This is the first I didn’t even know we were changing procedures tonight … I think this is ridiculous, that this is happening right now.”
That confusion in the meeting procedures came from a shift in how the hearing was conducted.
Traditionally, development order hearings in Walton County allowed the public to testify more freely, sometimes even with their own representation to question witnesses.
However, in this case, the county had transitioned to a quasi-judicial format under a magistrate system, which significantly limited the types of evidence that could be considered and the individuals who could formally participate in the proceedings.
Residents also questioned the accuracy of the traffic study, saying it understated truck trips and downplayed congestion risks. Some cited personal experiences living near refineries or asphalt operations elsewhere, describing odors and quality-of-life impacts.
Others raised concerns about stormwater runoff, wetland protection, and compatibility with Hammock Bay, a nearby growing master-planned community.
One parent pointed to the hours-long wait for their children to testify, saying families felt punished by procedural crackdowns. “My kids have sat here quietly waiting for their chance to address … is this what you want to teach them?” the resident asked.
The commission ultimately voted 4-1 to pass the decision to a magistrate review process. If approved there, it will ultimately be up to members of the Walton County Commission to decide on the matter.
Developers insist the plant complies with all regulations. At the same time, opponents vow to continue fighting, warning the facility would lock Walton County into an outdated industrial use at odds with its future growth.
Pro Communi Bono
St. Francis De Sales, Ora Pro Nobis!
Register or login with Mid Bay News and never get another pop up on our site!
