County sued for $3 Million+

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?
Probably because there is no interest in long range planning and development in mind. Only the greed of "its my property so I can do whatever I want with it regardless how it affects the rest of the citizen of the county".

All I see is VILLAGE, stoplight planned for three locations between the bay and hwy 20- 3280, LaGrange, and Jolly Bay. This project Passed TRC with flying colors, Planning board gave it a unanimous YES.

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, Your arguments are flimsy and meant to be a distraction to my questions. I have really only asked one question over and over and you won't answer it because the truth doesn't help your position. I know that the height issue is only one piece of the disagreement, but you know darn well that the County rushed the height limit ordinance through as an obstacle to this project. That's my only point and I have no other. This "ends justifies the means" bull has no place in Government. That would be to say that if you are in the in crowd that you can gain favor from Government. Walton County's back woods nonsense is going to lead to the bankruptcy of this County.

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.

No you could not expect that as density is still an issue and not one that they rushed to install to prevent someone from legally using their property.

Recently, when the planning department provided the 50' height restriction language for all of Walton Co., due to the Jolly Bay project, the paper work that the planning dept. submitted to the BCC for consideration was the exact ordinance that they had used to put a height restriction of 50' on Walton co. south of the bay - they just struck out the words south of the bay. (its in public record).
If they wanted a height restriction north of the bay, why did they only put a 50 foot restriction south of the bay so many years ago?

How can you make a blanket statement that Property Rights are at the sole discretion of the name on the Deed?

politician, republican...

It seems the applicants met with county staff many many times. April 2005 with Tom Blackshear, August 2005 with Mark Jordan ( Walton co. planner) for a formal Pre-app, September 2006 Mark Martin(county planner) with George Newman (road concurrency Eng. for Walton Co.) in attendance, Lois LaSuer November 2006, Lois Suer and Melissa Ward, May 2007. PUD recommended by staff and put on the August 1, 2007 agenda for TRC. No compatibility study required, no mention of urban, no mention of height restriction on the staff report, after meeting how many times with the applicant? I am sure the applicant spent many $$$$ to bring the project up to planning dept.rules before they would recommend it move forward.
Silly thing about it, Lois LaSuer raved about how great the plans were that were sitting ing front of her on the table, and then told everyone in the room, Planning staff had no problems with this project, not in a private meeting with her, but in her meeting room at the county courthouse with many people in attendance.

politician, republican...

I certainly hope you are trying to be funny because the issue of aesthetic and proper land use and zoning (which Walton County has none of but need badly) transcends any thing to do with parties and should also transcend politics as well though admittedly many times it doesn't.

While the applicants were going thru all this red tape with the planning department to bring their plans up to the counties requirements; Eng., road, design, topo, wetlands etc. Everything to meet the land development code and comprehensive plan.
Where was the planning director for all these years?
If her right hand person lois laseur is having issues with a project coming down the pipeline, why haven't the planning director and herself relayed anything to the taxpayers who are applying for the pud? Instead she has the local taxpayers (applicants) jumping through all kinds of hoops, but never was the compatibility hoop, the height loop , the urban loop, or the planning director hoop presented to the local taxpayers. Would you want your taxpayer money paying planning staff to be misdirecting you? Take a look at the report planning staff submitted for the the first trc meeting. (public record) you see if you see any of these "made up later" issues you let me know.

I certainly hope you are trying to be funny because the issue of aesthetic and proper land use and zoning (which Walton County has none of but need badly) transcends any thing to do with parties and should also transcend politics as well though admittedly many times it doesn't.

more about the poster and not the problem. there was a little snip in another thread about how saintly republicans are...

indeed, Walton needs to get on the stick sooner than later while we are in a period of transition(hopefully short) and get codes, and enforcement figured out with some reality based judgment.

in response to something else earlier in this thread, you'd be surprised how readily some will sue regarding their 'view corridor', knowing full well where they're buying and what buildout plan is to be. the 'I was here first' mentality is strong.

Recently, when the planning department provided the 50' height restriction language for all of Walton Co., due to the Jolly Bay project, the paper work that the planning dept. submitted to the BCC for consideration was the exact ordinance that they had used to put a height restriction of 50' on Walton co. south of the bay - they just struck out the words south of the bay. (its in public record).
If they wanted a height restriction north of the bay, why did they only put a 50 foot restriction south of the bay so many years ago?

It was enacted to prevent South Walton from looking like an extension of PCB or Destin.

It was enacted to prevent South Walton from looking like an extension of PCB or Destin.

Exactly!!!

It was enacted to prevent South Walton from looking like an extension of PCB or Destin.

Thank goodness! There but for the grace of a height restriction goes Sowal!
Given the current infrastructure, population, and density of this area, there is absolutely no reason to build anything over 50'. Many long established urban areas have a similar height restriction to promote a healthy density and living environment.

more about the poster and not the problem. there was a little snip in another thread about how saintly republicans are...

indeed, Walton needs to get on the stick sooner than later while we are in a period of transition(hopefully short) and get codes, and enforcement figured out with some reality based judgment.

in response to something else earlier in this thread, you'd be surprised how readily some will sue regarding their 'view corridor', knowing full well where they're buying and what buildout plan is to be. the 'I was here first' mentality is strong.

Strong and Stupid.

The best scenario for planners would be tiers, you get a view, I get a view, and they get a view. A bunch of 50' saltboxes isn't the answer.

The best scenario for planners would be tiers, you get a view, I get a view, and they get a view. A bunch of 50' saltboxes isn't the answer.

The Seahighlands subdivision in Seagrove was platted before nearly everything else in the whole 30A corridor and it did just what you said. That was in the 1940's before all the geniuses were born.

In this case, and many others in Walton County, there is nothing open and honest about it.

...the poster and...how saintly republicans are...

You are finally coming around I see. But it is probably too little, way too late.

Thank goodness! There but for the grace of a height restriction goes Sowal!
Given the current infrastructure, population, and density of this area, there is absolutely no reason to build anything over 50'. Many long established urban areas have a similar height restriction to promote a healthy density and living environment.

Actually, DCA has said in the past that these height limitations are increasing urban sprawl, this in turn increases our carbon footprint on the world and in the overall scheme does a lot more damage to the planet than building everything together in huge skyscrapers like they do in Asian countries. We just do not like it and since we have had no problem in the past taking more than our fair share of resources from the rest of the world we continue to justify this aberrant behavior is some misguided intellectual argument that it is actually good for us.

Just remember, height limitations are a serious cause of global warming. So if you are going to talk the talk........

Actually, DCA has said in the past that these height limitations are increasing urban sprawl, this in turn increases our carbon footprint on the world and in the overall scheme does a lot more damage to the planet than building everything together in huge skyscrapers like they do in Asian countries. We just do not like it and since we have had no problem in the past taking more than our fair share of resources from the rest of the world we continue to justify this aberrant behavior is some misguided intellectual argument that it is actually good for us.

Just remember, height limitations are a serious cause of global warming. So if you are going to talk the talk........

Until you provide a reliable link* to such a study I'm gonna call BS on your statement.

*The society for buildings over 50 feet is probably a little biased.

Until you provide a reliable link* to such a study I'm gonna call BS on your statement.

*The society for buildings over 50 feet is probably a little biased.

I can see where basic logic could be elusive to some here. But given time you too will see the error of your ways. Just think about it as you drive from the suburbs to the urban areas to do your shopping.

I can see where basic logic could be elusive to some here. But given time you too will see the error of your ways. Just think about it as you drive from the suburbs to the urban areas to do your shopping.

Hmm, I rarely leave 30A to get anything. In fact I haven't left 30A since December 21st.

Still waiting for that link to that study you are quoting...

Actually, DCA has said in the past that these height limitations are increasing urban sprawl, this in turn increases our carbon footprint on the world and in the overall scheme does a lot more damage to the planet than building everything together in huge skyscrapers like they do in Asian countries. We just do not like it and since we have had no problem in the past taking more than our fair share of resources from the rest of the world we continue to justify this aberrant behavior is some misguided intellectual argument that it is actually good for us.

Just remember, height limitations are a serious cause of global warming. So if you are going to talk the talk........

I agree with wrobert that sprawl is a big problem and the above is true in urban areas. I live in the middle of town and while I don't walk too much (too many children in tow) I hardly ever go more than a mile or two in any direction.

But unless there will be a grocery store, dry cleaner (scratch that - bad environmental mojo), major shopping, restaurants and schools within walking distance of Jolly Bay, the idea doesn't really seem to apply here. Building a bunch of units destined to stay empty for awhile also would seem to be a problem, environmentally speaking.

If you look at the Jolly Bay.com website, it sure does look like the start of what DCA is looking for. The buildout space is about the same amount of acres as Rosmary Beach, 16+ acres.

I still think they are lucky this thing was canned. It would be a big empty building with a lot of money spent on marketing the 1.5 foot deep bay. The math simply does not work on condos/apartments in Freeport. Do the math. Construction cost alone will not sell it. Then throw in land cost! The courts will determine if their rights were violated but I say they got lucky on this one...

Soundings done by Gustin, Cothern and Tucker indicate 5' to 7' water depth for all 49 slips. The building is the 5th phase.