County sued for $3 Million+

I seriously doubt this project would happen today if the decision were reversed. I wouldn't sweat any development on the north side of the bay any time soon.

I could have sworn that it was Meadows or Comander that was pushing for the height restriction. I don't remember a single news report stating that Brannon had anything to do with it.

Oh my mistake. I forgot that if it is not in a news report, it must not be so.

District 5 doesn't represent anything north of the bay, so I don't know why Cindy would have been pushing for it. The proposed condo is in Brannon's district, if I'm not mistaken.

The prevailing fear among the public about this project is that, if this goes through, there will be more to come in the future and soon the north shore of Choctawhatchee Bay will be littered with them. Meanwhile, those who have lived on and near the Bay all of their lives will be squeezed out. Gee, there's something about that scenario that sounds familiar! :roll:

Doesn't that smack of hypocracy? I don't care whether I like the project or not, if there was no height restriction before application they shouldn't change the rules later.

AAbsolute - you are absolutely right, if you don't agree on this forum with what's being said you are "Attacked". Adios!

attacked? where were you attacked?

I could have sworn that it was Meadows or Comander that was pushing for the height restriction. I don't remember a single news report stating that Brannon had anything to do with it.

It definitely wasn't Meadows, as she is against height limitations. (no, I didn't mistype that.)

Doesn't that smack of hypocracy? I don't care whether I like the project or not, if there was no height restriction before application they shouldn't change the rules later.

So if you begin to build a house, such as the Hilton house in Seagrove, ten years ago, should you be exempt from any building codes which came into place since that time period, even though the building isn't complete?

So if you begin to build a house, such as the Hilton house in Seagrove, ten years ago, should you be exempt from any building codes which came into place since that time period, even though the building isn't complete?

Yes, if that's what the law on the matter says.

Right now the law says the permit date governs the code the permitter is building to. Have you heard the term grandfathering? It's tied to fairness doctrines, dual process and the Florida Constitution.

I have heard of grandfathering. That is how we ended up with the two high-rise structures standing out in Seagrove, one of which is visible from the 331 bridge.

I have heard of grandfathering. That is how we ended up with the two high-rise structures standing out in Seagrove, one of which is visible from the 331 bridge.

SmilingJoe, I think your sig line speaks to my point best.

I have heard of grandfathering. That is how we ended up with the two high-rise structures standing out in Seagrove, one of which is visible from the 331 bridge.

I thought those were due to DRIs.

The bottom line is that it is their property, they should be able to build anything allowable within the existing land development code. It is not fair to pass laws and make them retroactive to ongoing projects.

Non-approved projects are not subject to any Code. They are simply in planning stage, prior to Final Approval, AND ONCE AGAIN, the project not being approved was not due to building height!!! What other part of the Code was changed during this project?

aabsolute, we've hashed this out many times before in the past on this board. Ownership does not entitle you to do anything you want on your property. You cannot legally make meth on your property, just because it is yours. You cannot legally dump toxic chemicals into the soil, simply because you own the property below the surface. How high or low above or below the surface, do you own anyway?

Again, why didn't any of you speak out at any of the meetings regarding this planned project? It seemed that the only people speaking in favor of it, were hired planners and attorneys, working for the property owners, plus the one neighbor who owns the adjacent property to the west, though he also spoke against it.

Oh my mistake. I forgot that if it is not in a news report, it must not be so.

See your not incapable of cynicism.

Again, why didn't any of you speak out at any of the meetings regarding this planned project? It seemed that the only people speaking in favor of it, were hired planners and attorneys, working for the property owners, plus the one neighbor who owns the adjacent property to the west, though he also spoke against it.

They never called me and offered me a check. Plus since the whole BCC is supposedly made up of small government Republicans , I should not have had to go and speak out for something that they should have fundamentally been in support of. I swear if this keeps up I am switching to NPA.

Non-approved projects are not subject to any Code. They are simply in planning stage, prior to Final Approval, AND ONCE AGAIN, the project not being approved was not due to building height!!! What other part of the Code was changed during this project?

aabsolute, we've hashed this out many times before in the past on this board. Ownership does not entitle you to do anything you want on your property. You cannot legally make meth on your property, just because it is yours. You cannot legally dump toxic chemicals into the soil, simply because you own the property below the surface. How high or low above or below the surface, do you own anyway?

Again, why didn't any of you speak out at any of the meetings regarding this planned project? It seemed that the only people speaking in favor of it, were hired planners and attorneys, working for the property owners, plus the one neighbor who owns the adjacent property to the west, though he also spoke against it.

I understand that property rights are not absolute, however, there should be a clear and overwhelming reason to hamper a property owners right to use his property. Further, if government restricts the use of a piece of property, the government should compensate the owner for the loss of the use of his property. That is only fair.
We have too many people who want to get their slice of heaven just like they want it, then keep everyone else out. Example is the condo that sued the adjacent landowner to try and stop a development, then turns around and sues the county for preventing them from using their beach property like they want. You cannot have it both ways.

SmilingJoe, I think your sig line speaks to my point best.

My signature line is in regards to the US Constitution. Let me remind you of something which you have pointed out. The would-be developer in this case is a business entity, not individual people.

I believe you must be referring to Amendment 5 of the Constitution which reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in a jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
*************

Now, the property wasn't taken by the gov't. The County has not stated that the owners couldn't build on it. Of course to build on the wetlands, they would have to receive permits from other entities. There was due process in that the developer submitted application and it was reviewed and passed on to the local gov't for consideration. Testimony and evidence was given by both the applicants and the public, in a open-door public forum. The County Commissioners voted, and rejected this particular plan, after hearing all of the testimony and evidence. The applicants were not treated any differently than other applicants.

Non-approved projects are not subject to any Code. They are simply in planning stage, prior to Final Approval, AND ONCE AGAIN, the project not being approved was not due to building height!!! What other part of the Code was changed during this project?

aabsolute, we've hashed this out many times before in the past on this board. Ownership does not entitle you to do anything you want on your property. You cannot legally make meth on your property, just because it is yours. You cannot legally dump toxic chemicals into the soil, simply because you own the property below the surface. How high or low above or below the surface, do you own anyway?

Again, why didn't any of you speak out at any of the meetings regarding this planned project? It seemed that the only people speaking in favor of it, were hired planners and attorneys, working for the property owners, plus the one neighbor who owns the adjacent property to the west, though he also spoke against it.

Smiling Joe, I appreciate you disagreeing with me out in the open. I don't take kindly to the Private Messages route.

Everything you said that I highlighted in red I agree with. Most of the rest doesn't seem to square with your own beliefs and I think it's hypocritical.

How is the rest hypocrytical, especially the last paragraph regarding if you want to have a voice, you better speak up?

Oh, by the way, merry Christmas!

How is the rest hypocrytical, especially the last paragraph regarding if you want to have a voice, you better speak up?

Oh, by the way, merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you too.

I bought six acres one time. Immediately touching my six acres were about 40 different property owners. None of the adjacent lots were more than 1/4 acre. I proposed a 3 lot minor sub-division with each lot being estate sized. I was highly selective about the great big oaks and mountain laurels that I would save. I'm a Libertarian and at the same time I highly value nature. My tree save delineation left 93% of the existing vegetation in place.

At the public meeting I had about 30 families appear in vocal opposition. There was no opposition on engineering or environmental grounds. The opposition was, "Please don't fence our woods." My sub-division was approved, but I learned to have disdain for the ignorant. I don't tolerate the exercise of control or undo opinion about private property rights.

I understand that property rights are not absolute, however, there should be a clear and overwhelming reason to hamper a property owners right to use his property. Further, if government restricts the use of a piece of property, the government should compensate the owner for the loss of the use of his property. That is only fair.
We have too many people who want to get their slice of heaven just like they want it, then keep everyone else out. Example is the condo that sued the adjacent landowner to try and stop a development, then turns around and sues the county for preventing them from using their beach property like they want. You cannot have it both ways.

Shouldn't the property owner compensate me if he puts up a 25 story tower that leaves my home in shade 90% of day light hours?

Shouldn't the property owner compensate me if he puts up a 25 story tower that leaves my home in shade 90% of day light hours?

You're funny. You have a point. Do you think it's to late to get everybody back to the table or have they set the height rule in permanent DeFuniak stone?

Shouldn't the property owner compensate me if he puts up a 25 story tower that leaves my home in shade 90% of day light hours?

Nope, if you buy in a zone that allows high-rise development, then you have to deal with it. You cannot purchase property and then try and change the code to your liking.

If the zone does not allow for such development, then the owner of the proposed high rise would be required to ask for a change and you would have the right to oppose it.

They never called me and offered me a check. Plus since the whole BCC is supposedly made up of small government Republicans , I should not have had to go and speak out for something that they should have fundamentally been in support of. I swear if this keeps up I am switching to NPA.

So you think that the project should have been approved, regardless of what the owner wanted to do? It sure sounds that way. Forget the rules in the Code. Forget that the road to the property doesn't meet the definition of "arterial road." Forget that 50ft+ RVs, pulling 30ft Suburbans will have to come out of that road into heavy traffic. Forget that the proposed development is, according to the planners hired by the applicant, "urban," when the Land Use is designated as "rural."

I notice that you didn't attend any of the meetings, and therefore didn't listen to any testimony and evidence presented. How can you make a blanket statement that Property Rights are at the sole discretion of the name on the Deed?

Nope, if you buy in a zone that allows high-rise development, then you have to deal with it. You cannot purchase property and then try and change the code to your liking.

If the zone does not allow for such development, then the owner of the proposed high rise would be required to ask for a change and you would have the right to oppose it.

It only "allows" high rise development because it is rural land and has no designation against it. If I purchase rural land I have a pretty good expectation that someone isn't going to build the Chrysler building next door.

It only "allows" high rise development because it is rural land and has no designation against it. If I purchase rural land I have a pretty good expectation that someone isn't going to build the Chrysler building next door.

You know what happens when you "assume.":funn:If the code does not exclude it, then legally it is permissible. If you do not like how the designations are worded, then petition the commission to change the wording. Otherwise you are stuck with how it is.