Jolly Bay PUD denial stands court test

Good! :clap:

They keep trying to make a profit off the taxpayers for this dumbarse project - it was rightfully denied (not because of the height BTW, but because it was a cluster).

Thank goodness the court recognized that the BCC and Planning department have, not only the right, but the duty to foster good land use planning. If I were the county, I'd counter sue for the costs incurred by the county in litigating this case. I hate suits and the issues that bring them. I also believe we should do everything possible to develop our community in such a way that is of greatest use to all and not just a greedy and selfish few.

as someone that lives on that bay, im just glad i wont have to look at it. im for growth, but responsible growth. at the sametime the government should have no say what one does with their land unless its written into law prior or voted against by the people.

Transect planning would be very useful in this.

Can the county counter sue to recoup costs of litigation?

I am not sure if they can sue to recoup the losses. If they can, they should, IMO. SWGB, you are right about the transect planning for this area. I think it would work very well in this location.

If only the County Commissioners would take the time to learn about Transect Planning. Good Stuff, and the property owners wouldn't have had to guess what the rules were.

If only the County Commissioners would take the time to learn about Transect Planning. Good Stuff, and the property owners wouldn't have had to guess what the rules were.

Have any of them shown any interest?

I believe I heard that Commissioner Sarah Comander has shown some interest, but they all need to sit down and take some notes.

I am not sure if they can sue to recoup the losses. If they can, they should, IMO. SWGB, you are right about the transect planning for this area. I think it would work very well in this location.

It's funny that the commissioner's haven't taken any interest. From what I've seen transect planning is pretty much a bipartisan issue in the area. Never fear, the sock puppets are reading up on this and will be posting how it's socialism at it's finest.

Not to sound ignorant, but could someone explain transect plannning a little, or point me in the direction to research it?

Not to sound ignorant, but could someone explain transect plannning a little, or point me in the direction to research it?

You're not ignorant, I didn't know anything about it either, until I attended a meeting on it recently, and urban planning was my field of study. It is developing an area beginning with agricultural or rural zoning and progressing up to urban, making the best possible use of the land area being considered. This is a very short and generalized explaination. To learn more, I suggest you contact Susan Horn or Mark Schnell. (It is possible I have his name wrong, I've slept since then). There is a thread on here (Local Gov) concerning the presentation if you wish to find out more about it and how it might be applicable locally.

It's funny that the commissioner's haven't taken any interest. From what I've seen transect planning is pretty much a bipartisan issue in the area. Never fear, the sock puppets are reading up on this and will be posting how it's socialism at it's finest.

I guess I'm still a little confused about the socialism thing?

Andy A hit it pretty well. It designates land densities going from urban to rural agricultural, with smooth transitions in between. Currently, Walton County has commercial use backing up to single family residential without rhyme or reason. Looking at land use maps, they put squares around major intersections, and zoned the property as commercial, but it backs up to rural agricultural land. Transect based planning allows for smoother transitions, so that we wouldn't likely have some of our current problems. One other huge plus that I see is that transect planning informs property owners of what type of development can be done with their property. Currently, the Planning Dept has a set of vague guidelines, and developers may not understand what they can or cannot do with their property. Google it.

The Defuniak Herald ? COURT ISSUES TWO ORDERS IN JOLLY BAY LAWSUIT

COURT ISSUES TWO ORDERS IN JOLLY BAY LAWSUIT

Oct 30th, 2009 | 0
By DOTTY NIST

During the month of October, the two parties in a well-known lawsuit each received a favorable order from Walton County Circuit Judge W. Howard LaPorte, with litigation to continue.
The lawsuit is Jolly Bay, L.L.C. vs. Walton County, filed in Walton County Circuit Court in October 2008, soon after the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) denied approval for the Jolly Bay planned unit development (PUD). The PUD had been proposed for a 60-acre site off Jolly Bay Road near Freeport. The proposal had included an RV park, a camp store, a laundry/shower building, a restaurant, a bakery/coffee shop, a bed and breakfast, office and retail space, a 49-slip boat dock, and a 73-unit, 147-foot-tall bayfront condominium, with the condo height being the main “sticking point” for the application. The proposed development was in a Rural Village land use district.
Another lawsuit, filed by the owners of the development property, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, had sought reversal of the BCC decision, based on, among other arguments, an alleged violation of due process in connection with the decision. Walton County prevailed in that litigation, and an appeal of that case is underway in the First District Court of Appeal.
Walton County’s Final Order denying the development proposal stated as the cause for the action the determination that the application failed to meet the criteria of the county’s growth management documents, the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.
Jolly Bay has alleged that “(t)he County Commission improperly applied an un-adopted, ad hoc building height standard to deny Jolly Bay’s PUD.”
Asserting that the BCC denial violated Jolly Bay, L.L.C.’s constitutional rights, the pending circuit court case seeks millions of dollars in monetary damages and other costs from the county.
The property owners are requesting that the court “(d)eclare that Jolly Bay is entitled to payment of full compensation of its property including, without limitation, the value of the lands taken, the damages caused to the remainder, together with any special damages which may hereafter become apparent.” The plaintiffs are also seeking a court order compelling Walton County to “immediately approve the PUD and the phase I development order.” In addition, Jolly Bay, L.L.C., has requested a declaration from the court that the county denial violated the applicants’ “due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution….”
Read the full story in the Oct. 29, 2009 edition of the Herald Breeze.

So, what were the two court orders?

I talked to one of the commissioners about it back when it was first coming in front of them and was told that the height (which is what I was focused on) was the least of the major issues that would prevent it from happening.

Trying to use a different word than cluster**** to describe the project, but it is just SO appropriate.

One of the partners wrote a letter to the editor of the Sun. Published in yesterday's issue.

"Scuze me, where do I check in my motorhome? at the high rise condo or the camp store?"

Here's the letter to the editor in the Walton Sun:

COLUMN: Walton's reckless actions put all taxpayers at risk | walton, reckless, county - Local News - WaltonSun.com
COLUMN: Walton's reckless actions put all taxpayers at risk




November 02, 2009 8:09 AM

Carl Post


I am concerned that the bigger issues relating to the Jolly Bay story, which was online at waltonsun.com, are not being reported. Walton County?s reckless actions have deprived property owners of their property rights, stifled economic development in the area and put the taxpayers at substantial risk of having to pay large damage awards.
In these trying times, we need more from our County Commissioners other than making up rules that have not been adopted in order to appease special interests. Not only do these actions by our county expose taxpayers to large multi-million dollar damage awards that are not covered by the county?s insurance, but they also deprive the citizens of an opportunity for more jobs, an upscale project, and an increased tax base that benefits all (not just the people in power and their special interests).

The Jolly Bay project is a mixed-use project clustered on 17 acres of a 60-acre tract that includes an upscale recreational vehicle park, bed and breakfast, and 73 units, in a 12-story condominium, a 49-slip boat docking facility and commercial space for the neighboring community. The condominium was designed in a location that made it not visible from neighboring homes or drivers passing by on Jolly Bay Road.
There are also other results of the county?s actions ? besides our lawsuit for violation of our constitutional rights that Judge Laporte recently allowed to move forward.

After being educated as to the real facts of how the county handled our Jolly Bay project, who in their right mind is going to invest money to TRY to get a project approved in Walton County ? a county where the commission makes up rules at the eleventh hour to kill a project that has been in the works for many years and unanimously approved by the technical review committee and the Walton County planning commission?

We worked closely with the county planning department staff over a two year period prior to submitting a project that met all of the Walton County rules.

We were continually assured by county staff, as we kept spending substantial amounts of our hard-earned money, that the project that we submitted met all of the rules.

Some people may justify the county violating our property rights because they are opposed to our project, but the bigger issue is that the county will continue to violate the property rights of its citizens at their will, until Walton County?s citizens require the county to follow the rules.

Our case is not the first time that the county made up rules to deny a project. The county was previously told by the circuit court in 2001 that it could not base denial of projects on its own made-up, un-adopted rules since property owners have rights and must have notice of the rules they must comply with to improve their property.

As the economy comes back, there will be a lot of competition for limited development monies. It is not too late for the county to do the right thing and reverse course so as to attract investment in Walton County.
It is not too late for the taxpayers and property owners to demand that the interests of all be represented and that property rights that make this country so great be respected by our own elected officials.

Carl Post has lived in Walton County for 17 years. Carl is the owner of Jolly Bay LLC, which is in litigation with the county.