Back to All About SoWal

Special BCC meeting about driftwood estates 2/18/10

Alan OsborneBeach Lover
1,610 views
There will be a special meeting of the BCC thursday, the 18th at 5PM to hear testimony on what the special master recommends for driftwood estates. Expect the county will be told to hire an independent engineer to see if developers followed the DRI. State DCA has already said two violations exist. South Walton Annex.

Edited

Replies

8
Andy A avatar
Andy ABeach Fanatic
#3
It is only one person's opinion, but they were offered many chances to correct the situation and rejected all of them. They deserve what they get. I didn't see the announcement of the meeting until just now and the meeting has already occurred. If possible, please post a summary of the meeting and any results.
Alan OsborneBeach LoverAuthor
#4
It is only one person's opinion, but they were offered many chances to correct the situation and rejected all of them. They deserve what they get. I didn't see the announcement of the meeting until just now and the meeting has already occurred. If possible, please post a summary of the meeting and any results.
It's a big and costly mess, they dont know what to do.:blink:
Alan
idlewindBeach Fanatic
#5
I still do not understand why this is our (the county's) problem to fix. If there are issues the developer should fix them. This is not the taxpayers prolem IMHO.
Matt J avatar
Matt JSWGB
#6
I still do not understand why this is our (the county's) problem to fix. If there are issues the developer should fix them. This is not the taxpayers prolem IMHO.

Is the developer still around, in existence? If not then it falls on the municipality that approved it.
Alan OsborneBeach LoverAuthor
#7
Is the developer still around, in existence? If not then it falls on the municipality that approved it.
The developers and their insurance are still around. Read the DCA opinion attached.:idontno:
Smiling JOe avatar
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert
#8
I believe the reason the county is on the hook is because they approved the work being done, which in reality wasn't done. If I correctly recall, a county employee signed off on the work as being completed.
Matt J avatar
Matt JSWGB
#9
I believe the reason the county is on the hook is because they approved the work being done, which in reality wasn't done. If I correctly recall, a county employee signed off on the work as being completed.

Whoops, I assume they've been fired?

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts