Back to All About SoWal

Seagrove Villas Commercial, again

NotDeadYet avatar
Beach Fanatic
4,619 views
At the recent BCC meeting, Aug. 11, attorney George Ralph Miller appeared with a new attempt to, once again, change the land use classification of the Seagrove Villas from NPA (neighborhood planning area) to commercial.

I would have pasted the proposed "resolution" here, but it comes up in a PDF. You can access it on the internet by going first to the county's home page, Walton County, FL - Home Page, click on "Your Government", then click on "Agendas and Meetings" and select the drop down box for Commission Agendas. Choose Aug 11, and when the file comes up, you can click on the agenda item at 4:15 pm for attorney Miller and read the "resolution."

I understand from a friend who was at the meeting that Miller told the BCC he did not intend to ask for approval of the resolution, but for the setting of a public hearing about it. There were two attorneys there in opposition, but the BCC did in fact set the hearing to take place at the Sept 22 BCC meeting, which as it happens is in DeFuniak.

Never mind that this has already been settled in court. It just goes to show, like Jay Odom again asking for that state forest corner in Grayton, that some people just never give up. :bang: If they can't get there one way, they will try another.

No matter seems to be every fully resolved in this county. It reminds me of that whack the popping heads game in the arcade. You whack one down, and another one pops up somewhere else.

Replies

31
Beach Fanatic
#2
yeah and did you ever notice how they all look the same?
Here4Good avatar
Beach Fanatic
#3
I am infuriated by this. I have read this part of the FLUM descriptions, this was CLEARLY INTENTIONALLY designated in this manner so that the land would go BACK to the use which is in place on either side of the motel, in the event the motel was torn down.

This FLUM designation is only 13 years old; SURELY the minutes are still around which contain the discussion.

The resolution is unadultered BS.

They BOUGHT the property KNOWING the FLUM designation and ASSUMING they could get it changed. I suggest they sue whichever commissioner they paid off at the time to insure the designation could be changed for breach of contract.
NotDeadYet avatar
Beach FanaticAuthor
#4
That is the case for many so-called "non-conforming" uses, that the commercial use goes away at some point in the future. But that intent has been subverted time and time again.
Just ask the folks in Peach Creek - that might be the most egregious example, and the case that gave new meaning to the phrase "scrivener's error."
Here4Good avatar
Beach Fanatic
#5
Do tell. :popcorn:
Smiling JOe avatar
SoWal Expert
#6
actually, to correct a previous statement, the motel doesn't have to be torn down for the land use to revert back to the original use. I believe the LUC calls for the property's value to be destroyed by only 50% or more for the property to revert, regardless of whether it is man or nature who does the damage. The other way for it to revert back to 4 single-family lots is for the current business to cease for a minimum period of 6 months. (Planning Head, Pat Blackshire spoke a while back about this and said that the County has been working under a different book (my words, not her's), saying that they look solely at whether the power to the property is cut off, in order to determine with the actual business has stopped for 6 months.

I believe Seagrove Villas business stopped for more than six months, and therefore should currently be reverted to four single-family lots, but I am not a lawyer. Seems that there is more than one reason why this property should not continue as a commericial use, and those are based on existing land use codes, which were in place before the property was purchased by NatureWalk.
Here4Good avatar
Beach Fanatic
#7
Actually, I did not say that the only way for it to revert was if the motel was torn down. I said that if it is torn down, the land use reverts.
NotDeadYet avatar
Beach FanaticAuthor
#8
saying that they look solely at whether the power to the property is cut off, in order to determine with the actual business has stopped for 6 months.
I just love it how the county makes up their own rules. So this facilitates the continuance of a non-conformity virtually indefinately, as long as someone can afford to pay a minimum electric bill and maybe keep a light or two burning. Confirms my earlier statement about subverting the intent of the code.
Smiling JOe avatar
SoWal Expert
#9
I don't believe that actually turning on a light was a requirement -- just the disconnection of power for six months.
wrobert avatar
Beach Fanatic
#10
I just love it how the county makes up their own rules. So this facilitates the continuance of a non-conformity virtually indefinately, as long as someone can afford to pay a minimum electric bill and maybe keep a light or two burning. Confirms my earlier statement about subverting the intent of the code.


From what I have seen, actual laws in this county are irrelevant. We pay an attorney to fight for what the BCC feels is needed. Totally ignoring laws, codes, and rules. Almost like an Attorney Full Employment rule or something to that effect.
Beach Fanatic
#11
From what I have seen, actual laws in this county are irrelevant. We pay an attorney to fight for what the BCC feels is needed. Totally ignoring laws, codes, and rules. Almost like an Attorney Full Employment rule or something to that effect.


Come on Wrobert, you too? I expect most of this anti-personal property stuff, but from you, I do not get it. This property has been commercial for over 50 years, can you explain to me why the propety owners should not have a right to update and upscale their COMMERCIAL property? :bang:
NotDeadYet avatar
Beach FanaticAuthor
#12
From what I have seen, actual laws in this county are irrelevant. We pay an attorney to fight for what the BCC feels is needed. Totally ignoring laws, codes, and rules. Almost like an Attorney Full Employment rule or something to that effect. __________________
Another first for SoWal! wrobert and I found something we can agree on! :clap:
NotDeadYet avatar
Beach FanaticAuthor
#13
This property has been commercial for over 50 years, can you explain to me why the propety owners should not have a right to update and upscale their COMMERCIAL property?
If this is your position, then logically you must oppose all zoning laws. This property was not commercial for 50 years, because we have not had zoning in this county for 50 years. (Technically, it's not "zoning," it's land use designations, a sort of hybrid form of zoning.) If you take the position that any use that predates zoning should remain that way forever, then you can really never have effective zoning except for vacant parcels, and even then some of the owners of the vacant parcels would complain they weren't getting the same benefits as owners of already developed property, depending on how they wanted to develop their property.
The proposed plans for this site are way more than "updating and upscaling." Furthermore, the code (which is the law) prohibits enlargement of a non-conformity, which is what Seagrove Villas is, and there are other prohibitions as well as noted above by SJ. So that's why, because it's the law, as affirmed by the courts. I thought you believed in the rule of law? :idontno:
Beach Runner avatar
beats on hood
#14
I am so confused by all of this, I see the signs that are counterintuitive to the posts that I read on this message board. Maybe sleep will help.


And another issue in the 'hood. What is going on at the faux Southern plantation facade to the north of Market Cafe that has a Hotel Viridian sign in front? How did I miss the scoop on that? I mean, it went from gourmet grocer to church to bank to whatever. I dunno, :idontno:
Here4Good avatar
Beach Fanatic
#15
Come on Wrobert, you too? I expect most of this anti-personal property stuff, but from you, I do not get it. This property has been commercial for over 50 years, can you explain to me why the propety owners should not have a right to update and upscale their COMMERCIAL property? :bang:

Because the FLUM doesn't allow it. See, that's why you have an attorney when you're buying a multi-million dollar piece of property which you intend to tear down and modify.

If you bought a house on 1.5 acres, would you assuime that it was okay to tear it down and build six houses? How about 10 houses? There are houses built around here on less than .1 of an acre, so that must be OK. It's still a residential use, right?

Of course not, you'd check that before you bought the house, not sue the county because you didn't do your due diligence.
coondog avatar
Beach Lover
#16
The property has been de-linked from Naturewalk, hence the prior owner's plan to develop a massive Beach Club development is no longer going to happen. A foreclosure judgment has been issued and the lender is simply seeking to obtain acknowledgment for what the property is, and what is has been for 50 years - a commerical property.
Smiling JOe avatar
SoWal Expert
#17
Because the FLUM doesn't allow it. See, that's why you have an attorney when you're buying a multi-million dollar piece of property which you intend to tear down and modify....

Your statement makes me wonder... Maybe Nature Walk's attorney continues to fight this for fear of being sued, himself, by Nature Walk, for letting them go through with the purchase of what he should have known wouldn't work. That would make sense. Plus, the more he fights this, the more he can bill NatureWalk.
NotDeadYet avatar
Beach FanaticAuthor
#18
the lender is simply seeking to obtain acknowledgment for what the property is, and what is has been for 50 years - a commerical property.
Phooey, I don't think so. There was a court decision, two in fact. You are saying this isn't good enough for the lender??
Smiling JOe avatar
SoWal Expert
#19
The property has been de-linked from Naturewalk, hence the prior owner's plan to develop a massive Beach Club development is no longer going to happen. A foreclosure judgment has been issued and the lender is simply seeking to obtain acknowledgment for what the property is, and what is has been for 50 years - a commerical property.

Please show me in the County Land Use Code or FLUM (Future Land Use Map) where it states that this property is commercial property. Plat Book 2, page 50, specifically shows this property as four single-family residential lots, when it was developed by Cube and Louise McGee in 1950. See attached, and if you don't know what you are looking at, the subject property is the area darkened area in the lower right corner, indicated on the plat as lots 14,15,16,17, of Block 7. So, even though the Land Use Code hasn't been around 50 years, the plat shows the original intent of the use of the property, which is the same as the Land Use Code -- Single Family Residential (four lots). I'll add that the property is surrounded by the Gulf to the south and single family residences on the other three sides. It is smack-dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
coondog avatar
Beach Lover
#20
The Court decision dealt with the County's improperly approving the development of the Beach Club, not the fact that the property has been a commercial use for over 50 years.
Beach Fanatic
#21
If this is your position, then logically you must oppose all zoning laws. This property was not commercial for 50 years, because we have not had zoning in this county for 50 years. (Technically, it's not "zoning," it's land use designations, a sort of hybrid form of zoning.) If you take the position that any use that predates zoning should remain that way forever, then you can really never have effective zoning except for vacant parcels, and even then some of the owners of the vacant parcels would complain they weren't getting the same benefits as owners of already developed property, depending on how they wanted to develop their property.
The proposed plans for this site are way more than "updating and upscaling." Furthermore, the code (which is the law) prohibits enlargement of a non-conformity, which is what Seagrove Villas is, and there are other prohibitions as well as noted above by SJ. So that's why, because it's the law, as affirmed by the courts. I thought you believed in the rule of law? :idontno:

I do not oppose zoning, I oppose using laws to take property rights long established. This property has been commercial as long as I can remember. To attempt to change reality by using a ordinance is a "taking" and is unconstitutional. Zoning should be used to codify reality and to promote like uses in the future.
I fully support the rule of law. I believe the ordinance takes an established right from the property owner and is therefore illegal.
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#22
I am so confused by all of this, I see the signs that are counterintuitive to the posts that I read on this message board. Maybe sleep will help.


And another issue in the 'hood. What is going on at the faux Southern plantation facade to the north of Market Cafe that has a Hotel Viridian sign in front? How did I miss the scoop on that? I mean, it went from gourmet grocer to church to bank to whatever. I dunno, :idontno:

First of all, sleep might help, poor dear. On number two, the group that has been trying to get the Viridian Hotel going, have always owned the grocery/bank/church colonial facade. They simply moved their office from the old Seagrove Realty building into the upstairs of that building. Goodnite ??:blink:
Smiling JOe avatar
SoWal Expert
#23
two words would settle all of this ... Transect Planning
NotDeadYet avatar
Beach FanaticAuthor
#24
The Court decision dealt with the County's improperly approving the development of the Beach Club, not the fact that the property has been a commercial use for over 50 years.
No, you are wrong. The court decision dealt with whether or not the deed restrictions, or lack thereof, meant that something could be developed that conflicted with the code. The ruling made it clear that these lots are subject to the LDC and the Comp Plan. The judge said that a reading of the language on the deeds indicated no specific covenants or restrictions, and that the county misinterpreted this and departed from established legal principles.
coondog avatar
Beach Lover
#25
When the comprehensive land use plan was last approved, the County neglected to include this parcel as commercial, even though it had, and has been used as commercial for over 50 years. It's called a scrivners error, which is what they are trying to correct, nothing sinister about it.
Smiling JOe avatar
SoWal Expert
#26
When the comprehensive land use plan was last approved, the County neglected to include this parcel as commercial, even though it had, and has been used as commercial for over 50 years. It's called a scrivners error, which is what they are trying to correct, nothing sinister about it.
So wrong. They didn't map it as commercial, because it sits smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood and was designed to be single family lots, not commercial, according to the plat, dated 1950. It is noted as a non-conforming use, which will revert back to the original intention of the use, four single-family residential lots. If there was an error or oversight, it was when they first built a motel on that sight. Of course, there were only a small number of people living here, then, so they didn't have to do things by the book. (they still fail to do so even today, as shown by this ridiculousness.)

My guess is that you work for the attorney representing the property, hoping to get a short list of everything to address in your presentation to the County.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts