Walton County Commissioners to Consider County-Wide Height Limits, May 26 2009

Probably because I've been wanting them to pass a county-wide height ordinance and most are still recovering from the long weekend.

Im all for it! Im in the construction industry and want to see the work, but I also dont want some bully developer building a highrise next to a residential neighborhood like on PCB. Besides, this will just force developers and the project designers to think outside the box. God forbid

Walton County Commissioners to Consider County-Wide Height Limits at tonight's BCC Meeting in Defuniak Springs. I wonder why no one is talking about this.

I think the freedom fighters have all realized we lost.

I think the freedom fighters have all realized we lost.

OR, the developers/officials they have bought are too busy w/ indictments and foreclosures to make a fuss about common sense legislation. :roll:

I wonder why no one is talking about this.

Haven't we already been there and done that? More than once? Who remembers what happened the last time??

Haven't we already been there and done that? More than once? Who remembers what happened the last time??

Someone stood up from Choctaw Beach and threatened them with multiple Bert Harris claims and they backed down.

Well there goes my plans for Paxton Towers and the Freeport Trade Center.

/sarcasm off/

Has anyone heard updates from this meeting? I hope the plan isn't to increase the 30-A height limit to that in the Miramar Beach area.

Has anyone heard updates from this meeting? I hope the plan isn't to increase the 30-A height limit to that in the Miramar Beach area.

The only talk has been to make the height limitation county wide, thus seizing the value of peoples property without compensation.

The only talk has been to make the height limitation county wide, thus seizing the value of peoples property without compensation.

OR, to preserve and increase property values with smart growth and planning. :roll:

OR, to preserve and increase property values with smart growth and planning. :roll:

Yes, what an example of perspective >> perception. Is it taking rights away, or the smartest thing we could do? The latter, I believe.

Let's not be just like everyone else, OK? Because, if we were, then we'd be just like everyone else, get it? What is the greatest single beneficial difference between 30a SoWal, and west SoWal & SoBay & SoOka? The height limit.

Yes, what an example of perspective >> perception. Is it taking rights away, or the smartest thing we could do? The latter, I believe.

Let's not be just like everyone else, OK? Because, if we were, then we'd be just like everyone else, get it? What is the greatest single beneficial difference between 30a SoWal, and west SoWal & SoBay & SoOka? The height limit.

And how is it beneficial? I can no more see the gulf standing in the shadow of a fifty building than I can in the shadow of a 150 foot building.

And how is it beneficial? I can no more see the gulf standing in the shadow of a fifty building than I can in the shadow of a 150 foot building.

What is a fifty building?

The point is that PCB, Destin, and FWB will all go through the Ft. Lauderdale/Miami syndrome very soon.

Back in the 50's and 60's those areas boomed and built condos and towers that were assumed to be there forever. Fast forward to the 80's and 90's and those buildings were torn down to build even higher buildings. Without a height limitation the buildings will continue to get higher and therefore dilute the property value.

The local areas listed above started out with buildings in the 10 story range and have during the boom capped out at around 30 stories. In 20-30 years the remaining 10 story buildings will come down and higher buildings will go in without a height limitation. Meanwhile the neighborhoods of South Walton (WaterColor, WaterSound, Alys, Rosemary, Seagrove, Dune Allen, BMB, etc.) will have the same number of homes with no way to dilute the property value by building up.

If you follow this scenario unrestricted height actually robs a property owner of their property value.

But, wrobert, don't property values tend to run higher in SoWal than in similar parts of Bay and Okaloosa Counties? I would think that the denisty factor created by the recent high rise revolution in the PCB area is probably dilluting the value of condo units (and possibly surrounding properties) in that area, while the "scarcity of real estate" factor has been a value enhancer for property owners in the 30-A area. And no, I haven't done detailed research on this, but it has been my observation of the respective markets.

And edited to add: I agree with SWGB.

What is a fifty building?

The point is that PCB, Destin, and FWB will all go through the Ft. Lauderdale/Miami syndrome very soon.

Back in the 50's and 60's those areas boomed and built condos and towers that were assumed to be there forever. Fast forward to the 80's and 90's and those buildings were torn down to build even higher buildings. Without a height limitation the buildings will continue to get higher and therefore dilute the property value.

The local areas listed above started out with buildings in the 10 story range and have during the boom capped out at around 30 stories. In 20-30 years the remaining 10 story buildings will come down and higher buildings will go in without a height limitation. Meanwhile the neighborhoods of South Walton (WaterColor, WaterSound, Alys, Rosemary, Seagrove, Dune Allen, BMB, etc.) will have the same number of homes with no way to dilute the property value by building up.

If you follow this scenario unrestricted height actually robs a property owner of their property value.

I know. You are from the government and here to help. I am so happy that people who do not own property that is conducive to higher heights can decide for those that do what is best for them.

But, wrobert, don't property values tend to run higher in SoWal than in similar parts of Bay and Okaloosa Counties? I would think that the denisty factor created by the recent high rise revolution in the PCB area is probably dilluting the value of condo units (and possibly surrounding properties) in that area, while the "scarcity of real estate" factor has been a value enhancer for property owners in the 30-A area. And no, I haven't done detailed research on this, but it has been my observation of the respective markets.

And edited to add: I agree with SWGB.

Scarcity does increase property value in dollars. But is it not the decision of the property owner rather or not they want a tall building?

The only talk has been to make the height limitation county wide, thus seizing the value of peoples property without compensation.

I disagree with your thought that it will seize the value of property. Watering down the soup may make more available for the masses, but it will also cause the flavor intensity to decrease, thereby eventually decreasing the demand, and thus decreasing value.

Density isn't decreasing, so one's right to maximize density per Land-Use Code is not changed. If density was being decreased, then I think you might have a more valid point of property value being decreased.

I can no more see the gulf standing in the shadow of a fifty building than I can in the shadow of a 150 foot building.

You are seeing it all from a person on the ground's perspective. When you are on the fourth floor of a four story house, the shadow of a fifty foot building may hit differently on the surrounding homes, than would the shadow of a 150ft tall building.

One last thing, we are talking about property north of the Bay in Walton County. If we cannot sell the 2000+ existing homesites, with many more already planned, how do unlimited building heights affect surrounding property of someone wanting to build a high rise condo, in a rural area? Do you really think that putting a height limitation decreases property? Do you think that owning real estate gives you unlimited access to the air? The Federal Gov't disagrees with you, if you do.

I know. You are from the government and here to help. I am so happy that people who do not own property that is conducive to higher heights can decide for those that do what is best for them.

I'm as much a part of the government as you are, being a US citizen. Exactly how many people north of the bay are screaming for high rises? What if I come up to Defuniak, buy a house on the lake, tear it down, and build one of those nice 150 foot buildings you like so much?

Scenic Corridor is four storeys or fifty feet right? We aren't changing that, are we?

Scarcity does increase property value in dollars. But is it not the decision of the property owner rather or not they want a tall building?

I see what you are saying as to it being the decision of the propperty owner whether they want a tall building on their parcel. It seems that you do not think that neighboring parcel owners should have any say in the development or usage of property around them. Would you be open to someone buying residential property next door to your primary residence to house a small outdoor hog farm?

Hubby and I have spent years fighting to keep our part of SoWal just as it was when we first visited about 10 years ago. We love the low-rise nature of most neighborhoods south of 30A, and we used the compatibilty requirement of the Land Development Code to successfully block a proposed high-density, 50' high (incompatible with the 37' height restriction in the surrounding area) development.

That is, relative to the surrounding neighborhood with strongest consideration given to those subdivisions that are adjacent to the parcel, a proposed development should:
1. Maintain a similar density.
2. Complement the general building type.
3. Complement the general building style.
4. Maintain and complement the fundamental development pattern considering lot dimension and spacing.
5. Maintain a similar scale and mass.
6. Be consistent with the extent of parking.
7. Be consistent with open space.

We are interested in continuing to do what we can to keep the 30A area from becoming another Destin. If you know of meetings that we can attend to achieve that goal, please PM me.

I see what you are saying as to it being the decision of the propperty owner whether they want a tall building on their parcel. It seems that you do not think that neighboring parcel owners should have any say in the development or usage of property around them. Would you be open to someone buying residential property next door to your primary residence to house a small outdoor hog farm?

Good point. My land is agriculture and yes, I would be concerned if a hog farm or a chicken house were to be built next door. What would upset me most is having to find some other place to live, or the time it would take from my nights as I worked to eliminate the offending problem. I did purchase a large enough tract of land though that it may not be as much of an issue as I initially think.

But is this not the problem that you have purchasing land that is not restricted in some way? I remember going to meetings where people would by land in unrestricted subdivisions and then come and complain when businesses would be built next to them. And watched a lady break down and cry one night because they were going to build a motel on Hwy 98 in Miramar.

So how far does one go with those sort of things?

I disagree with your thought that it will seize the value of property. Watering down the soup may make more available for the masses, but it will also cause the flavor intensity to decrease, thereby eventually decreasing the demand, and thus decreasing value.

Density isn't decreasing, so one's right to maximize density per Land-Use Code is not changed. If density was being decreased, then I think you might have a more valid point of property value being decreased.

True. So if density stays restrictive then why do we need a height limitation? Just another rule that we must comply with?

I argued this point at length with the person in Choctaw Beach. She has a small lot on the Bay and threatened to sue the county if they restrict height for devaluing her property. But the density is still really low in that area, so I do not see how she would ever even want to build something over 50'.