County sued for $3 Million+

I've looked it up. It is two individuals, aka- the applicants, and they have no development history.

Design may have met Code, but the project doesn't meet compatibility, as is required by Code. Public input was given, but public input rarely amounts to anything, unless real evidence is given in testimony. This case had plenty of testimony given by the public, showing how the project was not compatible, and didn't meet some basic requirements, such as the rules for this project being on a road which is not a feeder road by definition. As is, that property and the surrounding properties allow goats and pigs to be on the property if one wishes. Building a major housing development, urban in style and use, doesn't fit next to what could be a pig pen.

Again, height didn't stop this project, compatibility, along with some other fine details did stop it, and rightly so, according to the Land-use Code.

So, Smiling JOe, you don't think it is wrong for the county planning department to lead these people on for two years and say they can do what they want because they are following the code only then to have the BCC shut it down. Then you are saying the BCC is untouchable and you agree? The county commissioners don't have to follow the rules but we as citizens do? I'm confused here, do you want your property rights taken from you? So what's yours is mine? Wow that would be awesome....when can we meet....more for me. Also, wisdom tells me that you should do your homework on the whole process of what went on in those two years prior to denial before spouting off.

Sovereign Immunity! Sad but true.

Noplacelikehome,
According to the testimony given by Planning Staff, there was no misleading of the applicants. Did you actually attend the meetings? What about the meetings, prior to the BCC meetings?

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I believe the BCC is untouchable. Care to elaborate? The BCC finally DID follow the rules. In what way do you say they didn't?

What property rights were taken from these people? Is the Walton County Land Use Code stealing rights from people?

So, which one of the applicants or applicant's representatives are you?

Its people like you who are always going to think they are right no matter what is said, done, or written......that mislead the public. Seems you take this one personally, why? Blackshear removed the requirement for compatibility. Check your facts. The BCC didn't follow their own code. Check your facts. If you were in the position that these applicants were in and were told you could progress it fits all requirements, wouldn't you? Your banter gets old and some are sick of it. With you being an realtor, it would be a person like you to only gain from a project that would enhance the area. Why would the commission turn anything down in a "down" economy. That's the bigger issue here...any one ask if any of the commissioners have competing projects or are involved in some way with those projects? Hmmmmm.

So, Smiling JOe, you don't think it is wrong for the county planning department to lead these people on for two years and say they can do what they want because they are following the code only then to have the BCC shut it down. Then you are saying the BCC is untouchable and you agree? The county commissioners don't have to follow the rules but we as citizens do? I'm confused here, do you want your property rights taken from you? So what's yours is mine? Wow that would be awesome....when can we meet....more for me. Also, wisdom tells me that you should do your homework on the whole process of what went on in those two years prior to denial before spouting off.

Everybody screams about property rights, but they also seem to forget about property responsibility. As SJ said someone could have a pig pen next door to the development and I'm sure that the developers would raise cane over something like that.

Honestly I think it would be hysterical at this point for the county to say go for it, but you've got 2 years to complete the project. This was actually a blessing that they didn't get approval, would they actually even be breaking ground if given the opportunity?

Its people like you who are always going to think they are right no matter what is said, done, or written......that mislead the public. Seems you take this one personally, why? Blackshear removed the requirement for compatibility. Check your facts. The BCC didn't follow their own code. Check your facts. If you were in the position that these applicants were in and were told you could progress it fits all requirements, wouldn't you? Your banter gets old and some are sick of it. With you being an realtor, it would be a person like you to only gain from a project that would enhance the area. Why would the commission turn anything down in a "down" economy. That's the bigger issue here...any one ask if any of the commissioners have competing projects or are involved in some way with those projects? Hmmmmm.

I'm curious what your ownership percentage of Jolly Bay LLC. is?

You are making a lot of assumptions, especially like the statement that I would benefit from such a project being approved, and that the project will improve the area. Save your rant for trial.

I'm curious what your ownership percentage of Jolly Bay LLC. is?

my guess is that he is 50%. He is probably living on the property and cuts the grass to prove it. (inside joke -- I guess you would have to be there when the applicant burst out during one of the meetings, and Commissioner Jones had to ask council to put the applicant in check.)

These comments you put out are laughable. No involvement, just a concerned citizen who has been watching this and other projects go through the county's game playing....signing off on this ridiculous rant...as you call it.

You state that Ms Blackshear, "removed the requirement for compatibility." However, she doesn't have authority to do such a thing. She cannot be selective as to which parts of the Code she wants to follow.

So you aren't the applicant, and are not the applicant's hired guns, you obviously didn't attend the meetings, and are getting your information third-hand.

That depends. Are you wondering how you can get neighbors' thoughts, or the County's. Also, when you say "prior to submitting for the DO," do you mean to the Planning Dept, Planning Commission, or the BCC?

Sorry Smiling Joe. I wasn't asking you. When I ask you questions you obfuscate instead of answering. I suppose you think I don't deserve direct answers when I ask you something clear. Reciprocity is a value not seen much in people anymore.

In the past you asked me point blank questions. Whether the answer had positive or negative impact on my point doesn't matter to me. Being clear and truthful does.

Nothing to do with that. You asked about something which was irrelevant to the decision made by the BCC, trying to tie the two together. This project wasn't rejected because of building height.

I have some property I want to develop. How can I show you my plans prior to submitting for the Development Order so I can get your thoughts on what I should do?

I have no doubt you have property you might want to develop. Depends on where the property is. It boils down to one word that you claim is not a requirement - COMPATIBILITY.

If I decided to put a multi-story condominium on my property on the bay in Point Washington, I would expect that my neighbors would oppose it. I would ALSO expect the BCC to value public opinion and deny my project.

Perhaps I am just stuck in my perception of the way things were and the way things should be in the future. I'm still having issues with the nice new houses and townhomes on Thompson Road...

P.S. I am off today, so my personal statements are just that - personal. In case anyone wonders.

Anybody look up the LLC on sunbiz.org?

MY understanding is that they had approval up to the BCC hearing based on the fact that the designs met code. Once the hearing in front of the BCC occurs it is open to the public and the BCC is making it's final decision based on public input. In this case the public didn't want it so it was denied.

I thought these hearings were quasi-judicial. If so then decisions should be made on competent evidence submitted, not 'feelings'.

You state that Ms Blackshear, "removed the requirement for compatibility." However, she doesn't have authority to do such a thing. She cannot be selective as to which parts of the Code she wants to follow.

So you aren't the applicant, and are not the applicant's hired guns, you obviously didn't attend the meetings, and are getting your information third-hand.

I will certainly have to go back and look, but I believe the Planning director is given extraordinarily wide latitude in code interpretation and that the code reserves that discretion solely to the position.

I thought these hearings were quasi-judicial. If so then decisions should be made on competent evidence submitted, not 'feelings'.

All quasi judicial hearings require exparte from the Commissioners. Which is emails, letters, or conversations they have had with people regarding the issue. So if those things that show support or opposition have to be documented, I would think that they could play some role in the decision making.

All quasi judicial hearings require exparte from the Commissioners. Which is emails, letters, or conversations they have had with people regarding the issue. So if those things that show support or opposition have to be documented, I would think that they could play some role in the decision making.

Some role, I am sure, but what weight do you give a communication versus actual evidence?

I will certainly have to go back and look, but I believe the Planning director is given extraordinarily wide latitude in code interpretation and that the code reserves that discretion solely to the position.

She is given wide range, and final say with regards to interpretation, which is done to cover any thing like parts of the Code which were inadvertently omitted, or to clarify confusing and perhaps conflicting language in the Code. However, she cannot simply strike parts of the Code at will if she doesn't want them to apply to a particular applicant.

I think their development whould have been a boost to the property around thet area and may have made the county make them clean up some of the trash in the area. It is not like this area is rual and all. I live in the area and tried to have chickens and things when i mover to the area because it was rual then but was told they did not meet county code in that area and when i did the reserch i found that to be true. I do not belive any area in that neighborhood would be allowed to have any type of farm animals

I thought these hearings were quasi-judicial. If so then decisions should be made on competent evidence submitted, not 'feelings'.

So if I wanted to open a strip club next to your business and there was no code preventing me from doing so you wouldn't want the BCC to listen to the surrounding businesses/home owners as to their opinion of that business opening?

I do believe in part that the height limit had something to do with it. The BCC passed a emergency ordinance for a height limit after their Jolly Bay app. was received. They had to allow the App. to go through because it was before the ordinance. When they did not approve it they passed the ordinance for good. Now the county has robbed the property rights from everyone who owned property before the ordinance was passed who had property zoned to allow multistory buildings. I think the county should haft to pay everyone who had their rights removed from or resend the ordinance for their properties.

No problem, they'll just need to increase the property taxes you pay to cover that.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I do remember the first thread about this project. All of the opposition then was to the building height and density. Now it appears that height is no issue .... but the neighbor's pigs ........ Do I have this right?

height is mixed into the non-compatibility of this project, but compatibility is the issue, due to the requirements for such in the Code.

Noplacelikehome,
According to the testimony given by Planning Staff, there was no misleading of the applicants. Did you actually attend the meetings? What about the meetings, prior to the BCC meetings?

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I believe the BCC is untouchable. Care to elaborate? The BCC finally DID follow the rules. In what way do you say they didn't?

What property rights were taken from these people? Is the Walton County Land Use Code stealing rights from people?

So, which one of the applicants or applicant's representatives are you?

That is exactly the question I had. It is obvious NPLH does not have the first inkling regarding proper planning and growth.