Back to All About SoWal

Today's BCC meeting - 11/14/06

Sally avatar
SallyBeach Fanatic
10,591 views
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

Replies

53
full timeBeach Fanatic
#27
"Redfish Village is so much nicer than unspoiled forest it replaced"

Please post your home address in Orlando and we will kindly send over the crew to replace your castle with an unspoiled forest.
Smiling JOe avatar
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert
#28
I would love to see a recently taken aerial photo of the new developments around Big Redfish Lake side by side with one from 2 years ago. Where is that guy who takes all the aerials? It would really show you some of the collective impact of these four new developments, one of which illegally built a bridge through the wetlands. I forget the name of that project, but it is adjacent to and north of the Redfish Village.

Edited

pmd8 avatar
pmd8Beach Lover
#29
Dear SJ,

To clarify, it seems like whenever zoning variances or land use changes are requested and the public is against it, the variances are allowed. That's what I meant by "we're doomed".

Just look at the proposed relocation of the Panama City Airport. Locals voted overwhelmingly against it, it will ruin 4,000 acres with a great deal of wetlands and the cost is now estimated at 331 million dollars. The Airport Authority didn't want to extend the runway of the current airport because it would harm St. Andrews Bay. Now the plan is for the current proposed developer of the old site to dredge the bay for a marina.


This is not unique to Walton County. I split my time between Miami and Panama City. I grew up in Bay County and have owned property in Walton County for many years. Same old, same old.

Fortunately a lawsuit was just filed by environmental groups to halt the airport, so there's still hope.
Smiling JOe avatar
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert
#30
Dear SJ,

To clarify, it seems like whenever zoning variances or land use changes are requested and the public is against it, the variances are allowed. That's what I meant by "we're doomed".

Just look at the proposed relocation of the Panama City Airport. Locals voted overwhelmingly against it, it will ruin 4,000 acres with a great deal of wetlands and the cost is now estimated at 331 million dollars. The Airport Authority didn't want to extend the runway of the current airport because it would harm St. Andrews Bay. Now the plan is for the current proposed developer of the old site to dredge the bay for a marina.


This is not unique to Walton County. I split my time between Miami and Panama City. I grew up in Bay County and have owned property in Walton County for many years. Same old, same old.

Fortunately a lawsuit was just filed by environmental groups to halt the airport, so there's still hope.

I figured that you were either a long timer here who meant it just like you said it, or you were someone who jumbles their thoughts like I often do. It is clear now, and thanks!
Smiling JOe avatar
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert
#31
Did I mention that Walton County BCC voted last night to approve that property taxes whose collectable tax total is less than $30, will not have to pay their taxes on that property? What I want to know is where I can get some of that land. :funn: They said the total amount only added up to around $10,000 and the cost of processing the mailout and receiving and posting addded up to more than what they would receive in taxes paid. Now another thing I want to know is how in the heck does it cost $30 to send out a notice of proposed taxes along with a notice of taxes due? I know those clerks in the Tax Office are not making $150 per hour.
BMBWalkerBeach Lover
#32
Numbers, numbers, numbers...

In all this talk about the proposed development on the Red Fish Village lot to provide a "pleasant gated experience" for the owners, renters, guest and invitees of the Red Fish Village complex, let's not lose site of the density impact the number of owners, renters, guest and invitees will create for a 75 to 90 foot wide lot and ajoining beach.

Redfish Village has 80 condos for sale. Assumption: all 80 are sold and used as described in all legal, sales, and advertising publications. In that case, the numbers during the peak use season go something like this:

With 100% occupancy each day during season:
Owner: 1 x 80 = 80 folks funneled to this lot daily;
Owner & spouse/partner: 2 x 80 = 160 folks funneled to this lot daily;
Renters: 1 or 2 = same as above, 80 or 160 funneled to this lot daily;
Renters: 3 x 80 = 240 folks funneled to this lot daily;
Renters: 4 x 80 = 320 folks funneled to this lot daily;
Renters: 5 x 80 = 400 folks funneled to this lot daily;
I'll stop at 5 even though we know there can and will be more!!

Now, we all know that we usually don't have 100% occupancy in a development. OK, then just apply your own percentage to the numbers and see what you get. This is not going to be a pretty sight at this small lot, nor is it going to be good for the beach to have this much concentration of usage at this one spot on the beach.

Bottom line...spread out the Red Fish Village owners, renters, guest and invitees over the six roads and four public access walkways already in place from C-30A to CR-83 and east to Redfish Lake. Two of these four walkways are currently in use, two must to be repaired by the county due to past hurricane damage.

This concentration of folks in the proposed Red Fish Village project will do nothing but damage the beach, the lot, the neighborhood, the roads and create safety issues for everyone concerned.

Where are my eco friends?
pmd8 avatar
pmd8Beach Lover
#33
It takes a (gated) village to______[fill in the blank]

Edited

TreeFrog avatar
TreeFrogBeach Fanatic
#34
To clarify, it seems like whenever zoning variances or land use changes are requested and the public is against it, the variances are allowed. That's what I meant by "we're doomed".


Ditto.

It's not just Walton County, it's not just Florida, it's the American Way. The lust for profits for a handful of developers almost always trumps the public interest.

But it sure is worse in Florida. And it sure chafes in Walton County, where there's still a little bit of the natural beauty left to save.
Bob avatar
BobSoWal Insider
#35
"Redfish Village is so much nicer than unspoiled forest it replaced"

Please post your home address in Orlando and we will kindly send over the crew to replace your castle with an unspoiled forest.
I will gladly post my home address after you bulldoze the condos, replant the forest, and go find your conscience. I think you lost it somewhere near Marianna.
Bob avatar
BobSoWal Insider
#36
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?
Tell all the little sociopaths-in-training to crap in the VOR pool. Full Time, why not have the house next to you demolished so that you can experience a fancy port-o-let next door. Good luck finding your conscience.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
BlueMtnBeachVagrantBeach Fanatic
#37
If the private access is not an allowable use of infill and the nearby property owners are opposed, I'm afraid we're doomed. The developer will prevail.
An attorney out of Tallahassee has been retained to represent the adjacent property owners. He happens to be the same attorney who represented Sun Seekers condominiums in their case against the county (located just 4 buildings west of the subject lot).

Walton County came into possesstion of the underlying fee of the Sun Seekers easement in exchange for debt forgiveness back in 1987 from the original developer. The problem for the county was that the easement was created and intended purely for the private use of the adjacent property owners (Sun Seekers and a quadplex). The county tried to make it public. In other words, the property was "burdened" as a private easment and could not be made public without infringing on the private property rights of the adjacent properties (right to quiet enjoyment of private property).

Initially, after using a "local" attorney and not prevailing, Sun Seekers hired this other attorney out of Tallahassee. Sun Seekers won the 2nd round. The county, at the insistence of BMBCA (who I thought was suppose to "defend" PRIVATE property rights) and others, pursued this all the way to the Florida Supreme Court where they refused to hear the case.

Sun Seekers prevailed (earlier this year).

The county, back in 1987, should not have ever accepted this "burdened" property in exchange for fees owed to it. The current county attorney, David Hallman, should have known this too. But he, along with BMBCA decided that the property was "valuable" and that it should be pursued all the way to the Supreme Court of Florida at the EXPENSE of all Walton County taxpayers and at the expense of Sun Seekers.

My educated estimate is that over $50,000 was thrown away by each party (total of $100,000) for this debacle. Yes that's over $50,000 of taxpayer money. They could have used the money instead to build some Roman Spa restrooms at the 83 access instead or repair the 2 public walkovers along Blue Mountain Road that are still not useable (I know that's TDC's area and budget BTW).;-)

Point is, it takes legal representation to get anything done here in Walton County...either for or against. The neighbors of the 260 Blue Mountain Road lot now have an excellent attorney with no "connections" to local politics. They also have the financial fortitude.

Sometimes I believe the legal system is the predominate economic engine in Florida with beach tourism coming in a close second.
:roll:

pmd8, I appreciate your concern and input.

Edited

Smiling JOe avatar
Smiling JOeSoWal Expert
#38
BMBV, is this the same attorney who failed to show at last night's BCC meeting, sending the few concerned citizens home without an answer? Thanks to him, the item will be brought up at the next BCC meeting which is in Defuniak. I am sure that the turnout will be even less than last night.
full timeBeach Fanatic
#39
"Tell all the little sociopaths-in-training to crap in the VOR pool. Full Time, why not have the house next to you demolished so that you can experience a fancy port-o-let next door. Good luck finding your conscience."

Insults add nothing, though I am fascinated by your line of thought. Where your house sits in Orlando was at one time "undisturbed", and I'm sure someone liked it that way. Now, Orlando's different because of YOUR (and others) development. Our individual preferences and perceptions of good taste are not dispositive of the issues. I know many here (including myself) who have houses around or adjacent to neighborhood or public facilities and it does nothing to diminish value or detract from the appeal of the home or homesite. Thanks for sharing, Bob.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
BlueMtnBeachVagrantBeach Fanatic
#40
BMBV, is this the same attorney who failed to show at last night's BCC meeting, sending the few concerned citizens home without an answer? Thanks to him, the item will be brought up at the next BCC meeting which is in Defuniak. I am sure that the turnout will be even less than last night.
SJ, don't worry about the citizens that went home without an answer. The fact that it was postponed means the project is not approved at the moment.

I sense that you're in a pissy mood because the lawyer did not show up when you were seeking immediate gratification. I would have thought you, above all people, would understand that things of importance somtimes take slow and deliberate actions and reactions. It took approximately 5 years for the litigation between Sun Seekers and the County to finally come to an end.

For your information, the attorney was just recently retained. He wrote a letter to the county requesting that the discussion be postponed so that he could attend and properly prepare for the subject. That is one of the very reasons Cindy Meadows spoke up and pushed for the delay. Keep in mind that the Redfish Village agenda at the new lot had been going on for some time within the County before we on the west side of 83 were made aware. A "continuance" is a small and very wise gesture on the county's part considering the nature of the attorney's letter and of the situation.

If you think the "concerned citizens" were inconvenienced, as I know most of them personally, I can assure you they probably feel their efforts were worth the time.

Also you state "I am sure that the turnout will be even less than last night." You are starting to appear as negative as Shelly is about real estate.

Question: How many "concerned citizens" is one good lawyer worth?

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts