Here is the agenda for the county commission meeting. A few items of interest from the county file:
Armoring on Public Property. (Dale Koblenzer Agenda Item) A representative of five property owners are requesting that their geotubes be allowed to remain on the public beach. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has now identified 45 parcels where either seawalls or geotubes or both have been built on public beach, in some cases as much as 88? seaward of the private property boundary. The owners obviously want to keep their walls and/or geotubes and want the county to authorize them to remain on the beach. FDEP has asked for a meeting with the county to discuss this problem. In the meantime, some of the property owners have placed the issue on the agenda for Tuesday?s board meeting. SWCC has many concerns about this issue which have been expressed in prior position statements.
Help for the Coastal Dune Lakes. (Billy McKee Agenda Item) Many of the lakes are being overrun by exotic plants. The Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance (CBA) is presenting a program for identifying and removing exotic species from the lakes.
Prominence. This is the development where the developer illegally clearcut on CR 30A, has had two stop work orders placed for illegal clearing and then asked for a number of variances including a variance from the CR30A Scenic Corridor guidelines and the native vegetative preservation requirements. The developer has basically claimed that he was misled by the county as to what would be required. The county denies the assertion. The developer has also claimed the required preservation vegetation was planted. The county has disputed this claim. The developer will be presenting a compromise plan for both the Scenic Corridor guidelines and the native vegetative retention requirements.
Lot on Blue Mountain Rd. This is a sticky legal issue. A developer has purchased a lot with plans to tear down the single family home and put in two restrooms for a private beach access for his development. The lot is in the land use of Infill. Technically, the proposed plan does not fit within the allowable uses for Infill. Some neighbors are against the proposed private beach access and some feel it is a more suitable use than a single family home on a gulf front lot in an area which is critically eroded.
The developer also wants the proposal to be treated as a Minor Development. A minor development does not have to go through the full approval process including two public hearings. The problem is that the Code lists any Infill proposal as a Major Development. The proposed structures, however, are considered to be of a minor nature.
The issue will be how to consider this proposal without compromising the Code.
Alleged Scrivenor?s Errors. The county has received so many claims that current land use designations are the result of a ?scrivenor?s error? from 1996 that it is bundling up the claims and sending them to the state Department of Community Affairs for determination. By claiming a ?scrivenor?s error? the landowners are hoping to be allowed to have a new land use designation that conforms to their plans or current usage for the property. The county has disputed many of the alleged ?scrivenor?s errors? but has agreed to let the state decide the issue.
If you would like to comment on these or any other issues, the email address for the commissioners and the Planning Director are at the end of this email.
Anita Page
SWCC Executive Director
WALTON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
November 14, 2006
The Walton County Board of Commissioners will hold their regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 beginning at 4:00 PM at the South Walton Courthouse Annex,
located at 31 Coastal Centre Boulevard, Santa Rosa Beach, FL.
4:00 PM Call to Order Regular Meeting
Approve Consent Agenda
1. EAL Approval
2. Approve Minutes of October 24, 2006 ? Regular Meeting, October 25, 26 and 30, 2006 ? Value Adjustment Board Meetings
3. Request approval to dispose of a copy machine from the Purchasing Department
4. Request to approve the disposal of a diaphragm pump and to surplus two computers and a Ford Explorer from the Public Works Department
5. Request to approve surplussing a Ford F150 pick-up truck that was damaged in an accident
6. Request to approve a resolution to amend the budget for unexpended Economic Development Funds
7. Request to approve a resolution to amend the budget to roll forward monies for uncompleted projects in the Roads and Bridges Fund and the Glendale Volunteer Fire Department Fund
8. Request to approve a resolution to roll forward monies for uncompleted Planning and Development Division Software purchases
9. Approve Records Disposition Request
10. Approve Amendment 6 ? Agency for Workforce Innovation Contract
4:00 PM Dawn Moliterno, Walton County Chamber of Commerce
1. Workforce Housing Business Plan
4:10 PM Amanda Wood, The Ferguson Group
1. Federal Lobbying Costs and Expectations
4:20 PM Matt Douglass, Emergency Response
1. Medical Director
4:30 PM Allen Brown, Public Works
1. Request to advertise for Request for Proposals for Part ?A? of Tetra Tech?s design for the storm water system for Driftwood
4:40 PM Gary Mattison, Human Resources
1. Revision to BCC Personnel Polices for Policy 5; 5.6 Educational Expenses Reimbursement ? First Reading
2. Revision of BCC Personnel Policies for Policy 6; 6.4 Use of Government Property ? First Reading
3. Revision to BCC Personnel Policies for Policy 6; 6.5 Communications
Policy ? First Reading
4. Revision of BCC Personnel Policies for Policy 16; 16.12 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ? First Reading
5. Revision to BCC Personnel Policies for Policy 17; 17.1 Military
Leave ? First Reading
6. Director of Corrections position
4:50 PM Dr. Dan Beeman, Beeman and Associates, Inc.
1. Analysis and Recommendations for the Office of the County Attorney
5:00 PM Dale Koblenzer
1. Montgomery Street Residents ? Project Beach Restoration and Installation
5:10 PM George R. Miller, Attorney
1. Lot 260 Blue Mountain Road
5:20 PM Sean McBride
1. Easement access for Driftwood Drive
5:30 PM Pat Blackshear ? Growth Management
1. Transferal Request for BCC #5027 F750 Dump w/lift boom from Code Enforcement to Public Works
2. Billy McKee ? Coastal Dunes Lakes Project request by Phillip Ellis
5:40 PM David Hallman, County Attorney
1. Cari Roth Conflict Waiver
2. Question to Attorney General concerning flood plain provisions of the Land Development Code
3. Status of DEP response to question concerning applications for seawalls on County property
5:45 PM Ronnie E. Bell, County Administrator
1. Moll Drive Appraisals
2. Purple Heart Monument
3. Renewal of Mosquito Control Agreement with the City of DeFuniak Springs
5:50 PM Commissioner Cindy Meadows, District Five
1. Moll Drive property north of Helen McCall Park
5:55 PM Commissioner Rosier Cuchens, District Four
6:00 PM Commissioner Larry D. Jones, District Three
6:05 PM Commissioner Kenneth Pridgen, District Two
6:10 PM Chairman Scott Brannon, District One
6:25 PM Additional Public Comments
6:35 PM Public Hearing/Quasi Judicial Items
1. Final Plat approval for Lighthouse Pointe Subdivision
2. Final Plat approval for South Beach Phase II
3. Seaview Landing
4. The Winston
5. Prominence DRI
6. Bayou View
7. Watersound North NOPC No.1
8. J & L Eagle Cove, LLC Application for Scrivener?s Error Small Scale Amendment
9. Meredith Warren Application for Scrivener?s Error Small Scale Amendment
10. South Walton New Town Master Plan of Development, Overlay District and Land Development code Amendments
Adjourn
Times are approximate and may not be strictly adhered to.
Commissioner and Planning Director Contacts
Commissioner Scott Brannon Commissioner Cindy Meadows
District 1 District 5
brascott@co.walton.fl.us meacindy@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 622-3081 (850) 622-3059
Commissioner Ken Pridgen Commissioner Larry Jones
District 2 District 3
prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 834-6328 (850) 892-8474
Commissioner Ro Cuchens Pat Blackshear
District 4 Planning Director
cucro@co.walton.fl.us blapat@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 835-4834
SallySallyBeach Fanatic654 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
SallyBeach Fanatic654 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic10,591 views
Replies
53
BlueMtnBeachVagrantBlueMtnBeachVagrantBeach Fanatic1,385 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
BlueMtnBeachVagrantBeach Fanatic1,385 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach FanaticFrom Anita Page's memo:
"Lot on Blue Mountain Rd. This is a sticky legal issue. A developer has purchased a lot with plans to tear down the single family home and put in two restrooms for a private beach access for his development. The lot is in the land use of Infill. Technically, the proposed plan does not fit within the allowable uses for Infill. Some neighbors are against the proposed private beach access and some feel it is a more suitable use than a single family home on a gulf front lot in an area which is critically eroded.
The developer also wants the proposal to be treated as a Minor Development. A minor development does not have to go through the full approval process including two public hearings. The problem is that the Code lists any Infill proposal as a Major Development. The proposed structures, however, are considered to be of a minor nature.
The issue will be how to consider this proposal without compromising the Code."
The above text was "bolded" to point out the heart of this matter. This should not have even been presented to the BCC. Planning and Development should have simply followed the rules and denied Redfish Village's desire of a gulf front private deeded access between 2 single family homes for 80 condo units without having to go through as a Major Development.
Anita's characterization of the restrooms as minor structures does not really reveal the true nature of the request...an easement for 80 condos between existing single family homes.
The easement is unnecessary as the 83 public access is actually closer to Redfish Village. In addition, I understand restrooms will be built there this winter.
So why does Redfish want this private easement at the opposition of EVERY neighbor I've talked with (not just "some neighbors" as Anita suggests)?
I think I know the answer but I'll let someone else answer this.
My only interest in this matter is to keep up the quality and values of the neighborhood.
FWIW, George Ralph Miller, former Walton County Attorney, is representing Redfish Village. Keep an eye on the outcome.
"Lot on Blue Mountain Rd. This is a sticky legal issue. A developer has purchased a lot with plans to tear down the single family home and put in two restrooms for a private beach access for his development. The lot is in the land use of Infill. Technically, the proposed plan does not fit within the allowable uses for Infill. Some neighbors are against the proposed private beach access and some feel it is a more suitable use than a single family home on a gulf front lot in an area which is critically eroded.
The developer also wants the proposal to be treated as a Minor Development. A minor development does not have to go through the full approval process including two public hearings. The problem is that the Code lists any Infill proposal as a Major Development. The proposed structures, however, are considered to be of a minor nature.
The issue will be how to consider this proposal without compromising the Code."
The above text was "bolded" to point out the heart of this matter. This should not have even been presented to the BCC. Planning and Development should have simply followed the rules and denied Redfish Village's desire of a gulf front private deeded access between 2 single family homes for 80 condo units without having to go through as a Major Development.
Anita's characterization of the restrooms as minor structures does not really reveal the true nature of the request...an easement for 80 condos between existing single family homes.
The easement is unnecessary as the 83 public access is actually closer to Redfish Village. In addition, I understand restrooms will be built there this winter.
So why does Redfish want this private easement at the opposition of EVERY neighbor I've talked with (not just "some neighbors" as Anita suggests)?
I think I know the answer but I'll let someone else answer this.
My only interest in this matter is to keep up the quality and values of the neighborhood.
FWIW, George Ralph Miller, former Walton County Attorney, is representing Redfish Village. Keep an eye on the outcome.
Camp Creek KidCamp Creek KidChristini ZambiniSeacrest Beach1,277 postsJoined View profileMessageChristini Zambini
Camp Creek KidChristini ZambiniSeacrest Beach1,277 postsJoined View profileMessageChristini ZambiniIf the condo docs state that there will be a private beach access, and one is not built, then isn't it a "breach of contract?" Those currently holding preconstruction contracts at Redfish Village could then sue the developers for breach of contract and if they win, could get their earnest money back and walk away. This would leave the developer in a very bad situation.
Smiling JOeSmiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal ExpertI think CCK is spot on with her statement. :popcorn:
Beach RunnerBeach Runnerbeats on hoodNear the ATL and in SoWal as often as possible15,269 postsJoined View profileMessagebeats on hood
Beach Runnerbeats on hoodNear the ATL and in SoWal as often as possible15,269 postsJoined View profileMessagebeats on hoodBuilding multi-family units where there were once single-family dwellings is what it's all about right now. If the BCC keeps allowing precedents to be set and thus allowing this overdevelopment to continue, they've opened the door to SoWal being just five years away from becoming a Destin. IS THAT THE FUTURE WE WANT FOR SOWAL? ISN'T THAT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ESCAPE BY LOCATING IN SOWAL? I, for one, was attracted to SoWal by the low density development. IMO SoWal is about to be raped by greedy investors unless the BCC puts a stop to them. Highway 30-A simply can't handle the traffic -- it'll need to be 4-laned to accommodate it.
Please, BCC, maintain the integrity of SoWal and avoid being swayed by greedy developers.
Please, BCC, maintain the integrity of SoWal and avoid being swayed by greedy developers.
Edited
MermaidMermaidpicky7,871 postsJoined View profileMessagepicky
"Prominence. This is the development where the developer illegally clearcut on CR 30A, has had two stop work orders placed for illegal clearing and then asked for a number of variances including a variance from the CR30A Scenic Corridor guidelines and the native vegetative preservation requirements. The developer has basically claimed that he was misled by the county as to what would be required. The county denies the assertion. The developer has also claimed the required preservation vegetation was planted. The county has disputed this claim. The developer will be presenting a compromise plan for both the Scenic Corridor guidelines and the native vegetative retention requirements."
I'm glad to see this is going to be looked at. What was done to that piece of land is appalling. If the developer is brought to task about it, perhaps it will serve as a warning and example to other developers NOT to clear cut.
I'm glad to see this is going to be looked at. What was done to that piece of land is appalling. If the developer is brought to task about it, perhaps it will serve as a warning and example to other developers NOT to clear cut.
full timefull timeBeach Fanatic726 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
"If the condo docs state that there will be a private beach access, and one is not built, then isn't it a "breach of contract?" Those currently holding preconstruction contracts at Redfish Village could then sue the developers for breach of contract and if they win, could get their earnest money back and walk away. This would leave the developer in a very bad situation."
The developers live and work along 30-A and their children are in Walton County schools where they (the developers) are active in raising money for the schools to benefit the children of Walton County. Redfish Village is a plus for Blue Mountain which had virtually no mixed-use worth mention. Now, it will have retaurants, coffee and ice cream shops and other commercial establishments in a development that, for lack of a better phrase, looks a hell of a lot better than the other developments nearby. It seems petty to hope that the developer is in "a bad situation". Maybe cooler heads will prevail. Otherwise, density won't be a problem because most every place along 30-A will be empty except for renters during summer. The remainder of the year, you'll be able safely to shoot cannons down 30-A, because there will be precious few full time.
The developers live and work along 30-A and their children are in Walton County schools where they (the developers) are active in raising money for the schools to benefit the children of Walton County. Redfish Village is a plus for Blue Mountain which had virtually no mixed-use worth mention. Now, it will have retaurants, coffee and ice cream shops and other commercial establishments in a development that, for lack of a better phrase, looks a hell of a lot better than the other developments nearby. It seems petty to hope that the developer is in "a bad situation". Maybe cooler heads will prevail. Otherwise, density won't be a problem because most every place along 30-A will be empty except for renters during summer. The remainder of the year, you'll be able safely to shoot cannons down 30-A, because there will be precious few full time.
pgurneypgurneyBeach FanaticATL & Seacrest586 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
pgurneyBeach FanaticATL & Seacrest586 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach FanaticDoes anyone know what a scrivenor's error is?
STL DonSTL DonBeach Fanatic324 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
STL DonBeach Fanatic324 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic"If the condo docs state that there will be a private beach access, and one is not built, then isn't it a "breach of contract?" Those currently holding preconstruction contracts at Redfish Village could then sue the developers for breach of contract and if they win, could get their earnest money back and walk away. This would leave the developer in a very bad situation."
The developers live and work along 30-A and their children are in Walton County schools where they (the developers) are active in raising money for the schools to benefit the children of Walton County. Redfish Village is a plus for Blue Mountain which had virtually no mixed-use worth mention. Now, it will have retaurants, coffee and ice cream shops and other commercial establishments in a development that, for lack of a better phrase, looks a hell of a lot better than the other developments nearby. It seems petty to hope that the developer is in "a bad situation". Maybe cooler heads will prevail. Otherwise, density won't be a problem because most every place along 30-A will be empty except for renters during summer. The remainder of the year, you'll be able safely to shoot cannons down 30-A, because there will be precious few full time.
In CKK's defense, she wasn't saying that she hoped that the developer would be "in a bad situation". She was merely responding to the question as to why would the developer want/need to do this private beach access and indicating that a failure to accomplish this could lead to a bad situation for the developer.
Camp Creek KidCamp Creek KidChristini ZambiniSeacrest Beach1,277 postsJoined View profileMessageChristini Zambini
Camp Creek KidChristini ZambiniSeacrest Beach1,277 postsJoined View profileMessageChristini Zambini"If the condo docs state that there will be a private beach access, and one is not built, then isn't it a "breach of contract?" Those currently holding preconstruction contracts at Redfish Village could then sue the developers for breach of contract and if they win, could get their earnest money back and walk away. This would leave the developer in a very bad situation."
The developers live and work along 30-A and their children are in Walton County schools where they (the developers) are active in raising money for the schools to benefit the children of Walton County. Redfish Village is a plus for Blue Mountain which had virtually no mixed-use worth mention. Now, it will have retaurants, coffee and ice cream shops and other commercial establishments in a development that, for lack of a better phrase, looks a hell of a lot better than the other developments nearby. It seems petty to hope that the developer is in "a bad situation". Maybe cooler heads will prevail. Otherwise, density won't be a problem because most every place along 30-A will be empty except for renters during summer. The remainder of the year, you'll be able safely to shoot cannons down 30-A, because there will be precious few full time.
Full time, reread my post. I was simply stating fact and trying to answer BMB Vagrant's question as to why Redfish Village was so insistent in building a private beach access when there is already a public one closer. I certainly never said anything that should lead you to think that I "HOPE the developer is in a bad situation." I happen to know and respect the developers, I know their children and do NOT hope that they have difficulties. I fully understand development in this slow market and I also live here full-time, have children in the local schools, and raise money for the local schools. I do not have an opinion about this particular beach access, one way or the other. As for the end of your post, I do not think that the future of 30-A is resting on the success of Redfish Village, although I DO hope that it succeeds.
Camp Creek KidCamp Creek KidChristini ZambiniSeacrest Beach1,277 postsJoined View profileMessageChristini Zambini
Camp Creek KidChristini ZambiniSeacrest Beach1,277 postsJoined View profileMessageChristini ZambiniIn CKK's defense, she wasn't saying that she hoped that the developer would be "in a bad situation". She was merely responding to the question as to why would the developer want/need to do this private beach access and indicating that a failure to accomplish this could lead to a bad situation for the developer.
Thanks Don, you beat me to it!
Smiling JOeSmiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert"Prominence. This is the development where the developer illegally clearcut on CR 30A, has had two stop work orders placed for illegal clearing and then asked for a number of variances including a variance from the CR30A Scenic Corridor guidelines and the native vegetative preservation requirements. The developer has basically claimed that he was misled by the county as to what would be required. The county denies the assertion. The developer has also claimed the required preservation vegetation was planted. The county has disputed this claim. The developer will be presenting a compromise plan for both the Scenic Corridor guidelines and the native vegetative retention requirements."
I'm glad to see this is going to be looked at. What was done to that piece of land is appalling. If the developer is brought to task about it, perhaps it will serve as a warning and example to other developers NOT to clear cut.
I believe that Prominence's defense is that the greenry which they clear cut and removed was Pine Trees, and not the protected species of trees. :bang:
One good thing is about to come from tonight's meeting which is finishing up as I type. -- It's Ro's last meeting as a CC. :clap_1::clap_1::clap_1:
Smiling JOeSmiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal ExpertIn CKK's defense, she wasn't saying that she hoped that the developer would be "in a bad situation". She was merely responding to the question as to why would the developer want/need to do this private beach access and indicating that a failure to accomplish this could lead to a bad situation for the developer....and while I am greatly concerned with the number of units going up around Big Redfish Lake in Blue Mtn Beach, I am not wishing financial harm to come to the developers of said properties. I will add, that I think Redfish Village is the least to worry about out of the four huge developments in that small area in regards to it's impact to the local area. Collectively, they all stink compared to what was there before, but Redfish Village will have the least impact to the Lake and the Beach as it stands today, which does not include a beach club. As for the Village at Redfish bringing retail and restaurants to that area, I see good and bad from that, the bad being the question of who will staff those businesses? We cannot keep building businesses which require more people than the owner to work, without first addressing the workforce housing issue.
Smiling JOeSmiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal ExpertI almost forgot, the Montgomery Street thieves and this Village at Redfish beachfront lot items (separate and distinct) were tabled until the next meeting in DeFuniak Springs.
Edited
BlueMtnBeachVagrantBlueMtnBeachVagrantBeach Fanatic1,385 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
BlueMtnBeachVagrantBeach Fanatic1,385 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach FanaticOne good thing is about to come from tonight's meeting which is finishing up as I type. -- It's Ro's last meeting as a CC.This goes without saying!
...and while I am greatly concerned with the number of units going up around Big Redfish Lake in Blue Mtn Beach, I am not wishing financial harm to come to the developers of said properties.I know I've been vocal regarding Redfish Village, but I want to make one thing perfectly clear (if anyone thinks otherwise) since I've been focusing on this issue: I do not wish any ill-will on any developer, including Redfish Village. I have no financial interest whatsover in their success or lack thereof. I, of course, can't speak or won't speak for others... especially those that have contracts for one of their units.
Redfish Village tried to "slide" their private beach access past the neighborhood on the first lot (east of 83), less than honorably I might add, and were denied. They have screwed up and they know it. Should the neighborhood on the west side of the 83 access now pay the price?
For everyone's benefit... This is not a situation where Redfish Village does not have convenient beach access for their development. This is a situation where they have promised (in an attempt to make their development more attractive) PRIVATE deeded beach access.
The idea that a PRIVATE deeded beach access adds "value" to their development is offset by the idea that the same PRIVATE deeded beach access in a residential area detracts from the value AND from the right to quiet enjoyment of adjacent private property. I know I'm being repetitive, but it's important...we're talking about 80 2-3BR condo units. That's potentially a lot of people.
I will add, that I think Redfish Village is the least to worry about out of the four huge developments in that small area in regards to it's impact to the local area.This may be true, unless you own property adjacent to or near the lot in question. I can't affect total development but I can point out and discourage what I see to be inappropriate use of residential property.
If those of you out there think this is just a localized issue, you'll be next, one way or the other if the Walton BCC and Planning allow this very questionable use of this property to occur.
Thanks SJ, for sharing the info here.
Smiling JOeSmiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal ExpertThis goes without saying!Don't take only part of what I type. You forgot this part which I wrote only several sentences away from that which you quoted me on.
I know I've been vocal regarding Redfish Village, but I want to make one thing perfectly clear (if anyone thinks otherwise) since I've been focusing on this issue: I do not wish any ill-will on any developer, including Redfish Village. I have no financial interest whatsover in their success or lack thereof. I, of course, can't speak or won't speak for others... especially those that have contracts for one of their units.
Redfish Village tried to "slide" their private beach access past the neighborhood on the first lot (east of 83), less than honorably I might add, and were denied. They have screwed up and they know it. Should the neighborhood on the west side of the 83 access now pay the price?
For everyone's benefit... This is not a situation where Redfish Village does not have convenient beach access for their development. This is a situation where they have promised (in an attempt to make their development more attractive) PRIVATE deeded beach access.
The idea that a PRIVATE deeded beach access adds "value" to their development is offset by the idea that the same PRIVATE deeded beach access in a residential area detracts from the value AND from the right to quiet enjoyment of adjacent private property. I know I'm being repetitive, but it's important...we're talking about 80 2-3BR condo units. That's potentially a lot of people.
This may be true, unless you own property adjacent to or near the lot in question. I can't affect total development but I can point out and discourage what I see to be inappropriate use of residential property.
If those of you out there think this is just a localized issue, you'll be next, one way or the other if the Walton BCC and Planning allow this very questionable use of this property to occur.
Thanks SJ, for sharing the info here.
It is in regards to comparing RedFish Village to the other three large developments around Big Redfish Lake:
"Redfish Village will have the least impact to the Lake and the Beach as it stands today, which does not include a beach club."
meaning-- if they build a beach club/private access with amenities, the impact may be greater on the small community.
Edited
Smiling JOeSmiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert31,643 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal ExpertI think the crazy thing about the Redfish Village trying to get a deeded beach access is that the public access at CR83 will have bathrooms and will be closer to the Village than the other access which they are trying to build. I think it all comes down to that legal question of a breach of promise that the Village would have deeded beach access. That is only my speculative guess, as I have not seen the reservation agreements.
For the record, there were only about 5 people who raised their hand when BCC Chairman asked how many people were here to hear this item of the lot in BMB. I doubt that many will show up at the next meeting when it is discussed in Defuniak Springs.
For the record, there were only about 5 people who raised their hand when BCC Chairman asked how many people were here to hear this item of the lot in BMB. I doubt that many will show up at the next meeting when it is discussed in Defuniak Springs.
full timefull timeBeach Fanatic726 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
You have a lot of "private" in CAPS Vagrant. Is your issue really diminution of residential values or distaste for private access? I've seen developers construct long access points with no facilities (and the county provide public access with no facilities as well). Frankly, I'm glad VOR developers decided private bathrooms would be far better than having kids crap in the dunes (although I don't discount the value of this for dune restoration purposes). I have no idea whether the developers did anything wrong in obtaining approval, but the general consensus seems to be that these are likable guys. Hell, Roman Emperors use to build lavish bath houses as lasting testaments to their power and glory which archaeologist spent countless time and resources trying to uncover. Can't a bathroom be constructed in a manner that is non-offensive and aesthetically pleasing to neighboring landowners?
Camp Creek KidCamp Creek KidChristini ZambiniSeacrest Beach1,277 postsJoined View profileMessageChristini Zambini
Camp Creek KidChristini ZambiniSeacrest Beach1,277 postsJoined View profileMessageChristini ZambiniHell, Roman Emperors use to build lavish bath houses as lasting testaments to their power and glory which archaeologist spent countless time and resources trying to uncover. Can't a bathroom be constructed in a manner that is non-offensive and aesthetically pleasing to neighboring landowners?
Communal bathrooms, in the Roman style? ;-)
BlueMtnBeachVagrantBlueMtnBeachVagrantBeach Fanatic1,385 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
BlueMtnBeachVagrantBeach Fanatic1,385 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach FanaticDon't take only part of what I type. You forgot this part which I wrote only several sentences away from that which you quoted me on.I honestly did not intend to post your quotes out of context. Please know that this is true.
It is in regards to comparing RedFish Village to the other three large developments around Big Redfish Lake:
"Redfish Village will have the least impact to the Lake and the Beach as it stands today, which does not include a beach club."
meaning-- if they build a beach club/private access with amenities, the impact may be greater on the small community.
I believe we're looking at the Redfish Village situation from two different viewpoints:
My viewpoint is as a nearby property owner with friends who own homes adjacent to the lot in question where Redfish Village is attempting to funnel LOTS of people through. I'm not thinking about all the "other" developments going on and their related impacts and issues.
I believe you're looking at the bigger picture. With that in mind, you're probably right regarding Redfish Village having the least impact (in general).
Again, sorry if you thought I was "taking advantage" of your post.
If only one person is harmed by inappropriate use of residential land, it doesn't make it any more right.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.