191 Homes, One Surrounded Neighbor, and Paperwork From 2004

A citizen who lives on Shadeville Road reached out to us earlier this month. He owns about 8.5 acres, and the new 174-acre Raker's Crossing subdivision wraps around it. The project is planned for 191 homes. His land was left out of the subdivision, so the lots will ring his property. The plan shows four lots (173 through 176) lining his east side, another (177) at his northeast corner, and a long boundary running along his north line.

He isn't trying to stop anyone from building on land they own. He has said that plainly, in writing, more than once. What he wants to know is whether the county checked that this project won't send water onto his land, and whether roads, water, sewer and schools can handle 191 more households today. He has put those questions to the county in writing again and again. As you'll see, most of them are still unanswered.

Where the Water Goes

The homeowner met with county Planning staff on September 9. By his account, staff told him the county "cannot allow the project to push water onto" his property. He asked them to show him where the plans make sure that happens. He says he never got a sheet number, a drainage basin map, or a calculation that answered it.

Here's what worries him. He read the project's grading sheets (C-105.1 and C-105.2), which put his land and the back edges of Lots 173 through 176 at roughly 16 to 17 feet of elevation. The new street, Katherine's Loop, and its ditches sit at roughly 18 to 20 feet. The storm drains on that street sit higher than the back yards next to him. A 20-foot drainage easement between Lots 176 and 177 runs east toward the street. No easement or outfall is drawn onto his parcel. So where does water from those back yards go?

"'We cannot push water on you' is a rule," he wrote. "It is not a grading plan."

That same day he sent the Planning Director and Senior Planner a written request for five things:

• The runoff calculations at his property lines

• The drainage basin map for the lots next to him

• Any plan note or condition requiring those back yards to drain toward the street

• How the "pending renewal" would be processed, and whether he'd be notified before it was approved

• The state stormwater permit number

He asked the county to "say so in writing" if any of those didn't exist.

STILL UNANSWERED: No written response to those five requests appears in anything the county has produced or in the correspondence we've reviewed. Nothing on record says whether the basin map, the property-line calculations, or the permit number exist.

The rules are on his side on paper. The county's Comprehensive Plan says a new development can't send off more stormwater than the land did before it was built, measured against a 25-year, 24-hour storm. State rules require reasonable assurance that a project won't flood neighboring property. The regional water management district's handbook says that if a project sends more water onto private land next door, concentrates it, or changes where it drains, the builder needs that landowner's permission. He says he has not given it.

We went through the stormwater files ourselves. There's a drainage basin map from October 2022 and computer modeling output from July 2023. We couldn't find a narrative report, or any before-and-after runoff numbers measured at his property lines.

The county's own reviewers flagged drainage problems along the way. In a May 2023 review letter, staff noted that one stormwater pond drains into a second pond "which has no outfall point," and that both ponds overflow their banks in a 25-year, 24-hour storm. The engineer responded that a revised model, which counts water soaking into the ground, keeps more than a foot of margin in both ponds. The county accepted that. In November 2022, the county also asked the engineer to "confirm whether karst features are present." A 2004 environmental survey in the file had already photographed a sinkhole and a wetland with exposed limestone along the property's western edge.

Then there's the clearing. The homeowner says that on September 17 he heard machines close to his house. He walked back into his woods and found cleared ground and equipment tracks inside his property line. The operator told him he'd been told that line was the edge of a pond, not a property boundary.

Then We Opened the Concurrency File

"Concurrency" is the rule that the roads, water, sewer and schools a development needs have to exist, or be on the way, before the county signs off. Wakulla's own code says it directly:

"No final development order shall be approved ... unless it is determined that the necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed development." (Wakulla County Code, Sec. 24.154)

The same section puts the burden on the developer to show that. So we looked at what the developer showed.

Getting the file was its own ordeal. On September 15 the homeowner asked for every utility letter, the full concurrency file, the school letter, the traffic study, the permit status, and a written answer on four questions:

• Does the county consider the 2004 Talquin letter enough?

• Has a current concurrency review been done?

• Does the county consider the old stormwater and soil studies enough?

• What authorized the clearing?

The county's first response was two attachments: the old Talquin letter and the stormwater model. He paid $48 for the rest. The fuller file arrived about a week later.

Wakulla Reports filed its own request (PRR 2026-220) that same week, asking for the complete packet from 2023 forward, including anything on concurrency. We got two permit files. The homeowner counts roughly 37 documents in the county's permit portal for this project.

STILL UNANSWERED: None of the four written questions has been answered. We could not find, in anything produced, a written statement on whether the county considers 2004 paperwork sufficient, whether a current concurrency review was done, or what authorized the clearing.

Here is what the 417-page file actually contains to support water, sewer and traffic capacity today:

Water: A Talquin Electric letter dated December 6, 2004. It says Talquin can serve the land "should approximately 175 single-family residences be constructed." The plan is now 191. The Talquin Electric letter is nearing 22 years old.

Sewer: A Wakulla Public Works letter dated December 21, 2004, saying the treatment plant "could serve" the land "with proper collection system and treatment capacity extensions or upgrades, if necessary." There's also a May 2006 county memo reserving 66,850 gallons a day of treatment capacity, based on a sewer route that was never built. In 2022 the county's own utility reviewer told the engineer "there isn't sewer in your ballpark currently."

The county's concurrency review: One line in a November 30, 2005 staff report: "Talquin Electric Cooperative will provide central water service, while Wakulla County will provide sanitary sewer." No figures.

Traffic: A December 2004 study written for 175 homes, which assumed the project would be finished by 2008.

Soil: A geotechnical report from April 2006.

Stormwater: Modeling from July 2023, the only item less than three years old.

And here is what we could not find anywhere in the county's file, the permit records, or the correspondence we've reviewed:

• A school board concurrency letter

• A current Talquin letter confirming it can serve 191 homes

• A current sewer or lift station capacity letter

• A concurrency certificate for the project

• A current traffic study

• The environmental resource permit number or the current status of any state permits (the county's own permit lists state permits as a condition)

• Any record that neighbors were notified before the August 2026 renewal

The homeowner also wrote to Talquin on September 9 and copied county Planning. His tap water already comes out brown and smells like rotten eggs. He asked Talquin whether it had issued or planned to issue a will-serve letter for 191 homes, and what 191 more homes would do to existing customers. The Planning Director forwarded that letter to a staff planner on September 18. It's in the county's file.

STILL UNANSWERED: Talquin's only reply so far was a note saying his letter had been passed along. Nothing in the county's file shows Planning responding to the water-quality concerns it was copied on.

The Paper Trail on the Permit

February 6, 2006: The County Commission approves the rezoning and the 191-lot preliminary plat.

October 19, 2023: The county approves the development plans and development permit DP23-1554. The permit form says it is "valid for 6 months from the date of approval."

June 17, 2025: A revised plan set is stamped approved.

August 6, 2026: The county issues DP26-1038, described on its face as "Renew DPA23-1554," to install infrastructure for 191 lots. The permit holder of record is Pafford Properties & Construction, LLC.

If DP23-1554 was only good for six months, it ran out around April 2024, well before the 2025 revision and this year's renewal. We couldn't find anything in the county code that says what happens to a development permit once that window closes.

The Appeal the County Won't Send to the Board

On September 18, the homeowner filed an appeal of the August renewal and paid a $430 fee. He was told it was the first appeal filed this year. He says no one in the office seemed sure how to process it.

County code is clear about what an appeal does:

"An appeal to the board of adjustment stays all work on the premises and all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the official from whom this appeal is taken certifies that by reason of facts cited in the certificate a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property." (Sec. 3-23(3))

The county has said the same thing in its own approval letters, in 2006 and again in 2023: if an appeal is filed, "all work in reliance upon said decision must be stopped at the project site until the appeal runs its course."

The homeowner says staff told him they were waiting on guidance from the county attorney, and the clearing kept going over the weekend. On September 21 he delivered a written stay demand to the Planning Director and copied the County Administrator, Assistant County Administrator and County Attorney. On September 22 he asked Code Enforcement for an inspection and a stop-work order. The county confirmed both letters were added to the file.

STILL UNANSWERED: No stop-work order. No "imminent peril" certificate. No written explanation of why work continued. No response from Code Enforcement.

On Thursday, September 24, four business days after he filed, Planning Director Brandon Geiger rejected the appeal as untimely. His letter says the window to appeal ran from the 2006 plat and the 2023 and 2025 plan approvals. It says the 2026 permit "does not constitute a new development approval subject to appeal" because it carries out plans already approved. The county is refunding the fee. There was no hearing, and the appeal never went to the Board of Adjustment.

The homeowner answered the same day. He says he never appealed the 2006 plat. He appealed the 2026 permit. He says the code requires staff to forward appeal paperwork to the Board rather than decide timeliness on their own. He also says no public notice of the August renewal ever started a 30-day clock for neighbors. He refused to treat the refund as a withdrawal, and he filed a second appeal challenging the rejection itself. He asked the county to confirm three things in writing:

• Will his first appeal go to the Board?

• Has the second appeal been docketed?

• Does a stay certificate exist?

The County's Side

We want to be fair about this. The county's comprehensive plan says "a separate concurrency review is not required for each development permit within the same project." The county can argue that Raker's Crossing was reviewed back in 2005 and 2006, and that this year's permit just carries that approval forward. That appears to be the reasoning behind the rejection letter.

The problem is that we couldn't find a concurrency certificate for this project at any stage, in 2006, in 2023, or now. And the county has taken the opposite position before. In 2022, then-Planning Director Somer Pell wrote to a property owner in a separate case that "we can't honor that DPA from 18 years ago." Raker's Crossing is relying on paperwork that's even older.

Every Question Still Waiting on an Answer

Here's the running list. We'll update it as answers come in.

Sept. 9: Drainage calculations at his property lines, the basin map, the rear-lot drainage condition, notice of the renewal, and the state permit number, or a written statement that they don't exist. Unanswered.

Sept. 9: Water capacity and quality questions sent to Talquin, with county Planning copied. Acknowledged only.

Sept. 15: Four written questions on whether 2004 paperwork is enough, whether a current concurrency review was done, whether the old studies are enough, and what authorized the clearing. Unanswered.

Sept. 21: A stay demand under the county's own code. Unanswered.

Sept. 22: A Code Enforcement request for an inspection and a stop-work order. Unanswered.

Sept. 24: Confirmation that the appeal goes to the Board, that the second appeal is docketed, and whether a stay certificate exists. Unanswered.

Our Take: This Isn't New

Here's the contrast, straight from the county's own records.

The developer's renewal was stamped on August 6. We found no notice to neighbors and no updated utility letters. When a citizen asked for the records behind it, the first thing he got was two attachments. When he asked for the rest, he paid for them. When he used the one formal tool the code gives him, an appeal, it cost $430, and the county turned it down in four business days without sending it to the board that is supposed to hear it.

Meanwhile, the questions that would actually settle this remain unanswered:

• Where does the water go?

• Is there capacity for 191 homes?

• Why didn't work stop?

Those aren't hard questions. A public office that works for the public answers them in writing. When the answers are "we don't have that" or "we didn't check," a public office says that too.

Residents have told us for years that dealing with this county feels like a system built to wear regular people down while projects keep moving. This file doesn't prove anyone's intentions. What it shows is who got answers and who didn't. You can decide what that tells you.

What Happens Now

Two appeals are technically pending. Whether either one gets a public hearing is the open question. If one is scheduled, we'll post the date here first. That's the room where citizens can speak, and where the county has to answer on the record.

This is a living story. We'll keep following the facts as they develop, update the unanswered list as responses come in, and note any correction.

Stay sharp, Wakulla.

Additional Documents Located Here

Follow Us on Social

Facebook brings you bite-sized written content, sticky-note facts, and rolling updates you can share and discuss.

NEW! TikTok You can now follow Wakulla Reports on TikTok for quick updates and BOCC video clips.

YouTube is updated less often but does still exist for historical value and for longer videos as necessary.

Prefer to browse at your own pace?

Bookmark our website and visit anytime for fresh posts, resources, and real-life examples from right here in Wakulla County.

© 2026. All rights reserved.

Sign Up for Updates!

By submitting my information below I agree to receiving emails from Wakulla Reports.