Walton County Customary Use in the News

They haven't released it yet and that's what I'm afraid of. Keep in mind only one sitting commissioner was there when this was filed and only two represent the beach.

If all the parcels in it get to go fully private the for sale signs will pop up faster than dandelions. It'll create such a restriction for non gulf rentals and homes it might just kill this place.

I may have a way of finding out about the settlement. It depends on the Judge and his process. I am holding out hope for the 20 feet.

The only motion that has been filed is a motion to continue by the county so all we really know is what the commissioners have said about the proposed settlement agreement. It sounds like there are some details left to work out and the commissioners are testing the water with the public.

I may have a way of finding out about the settlement. It depends on the Judge and his process. I am holding out hope for the 20 feet.

The article that I got the "20 feet" from also stated that some homeowners would opt out of that agreement, meaning, I suppose, the county will continue their lawsuits against them. So, it's highly unlikely that "renters from the second tier" would fit on 20' interrupted by zero feet in many places.

They haven't released it yet and that's what I'm afraid of. Keep in mind only one sitting commissioner was there when this was filed and only two represent the beach.

If all the parcels in it get to go fully private the for sale signs will pop up faster than dandelions. It'll create such a restriction for non gulf rentals and homes it might just kill this place.

Already dead. Just fighting over scraps.

But values will continue to go up, renters or no renters. South of 98 is going to be a gated enclave with the gate being cost to visit/live in many ways.

Take notice that the Walton County Board of County Commissioners will hold a
SPECIAL MEETING and a closed EXECUTIVE SESSION on May 23, 2023 at 4:00 p.m., or
as soon as possible after that time, at the Walton County Board of County Commissioners
Boardroom, 842 State Highway 20 E, Suite 118 Freeport, Florida, to discuss the following:

In Re: Affirming Existence of Recreational Customary Use on 1,194 Private Properties Located
in Walton County, Florida, Case No. 2018-CA-547

The following persons will attend the meeting: the Board of Commissioners, William
“Boots” McCormick, Danny Glidewell, Donna Johns, and Tony Anderson; Tony Cornman,
Interim County Administrator; Clay Adkinson, Acting County Attorney; Matthew Richardson,
Assistant County Attorney; Frankie White, Assistant County Attorney; David Theriaque, Glenn
Burhans, Bill Warner and Eric Krebs, Special Counsel. This meeting will be recorded by a certified
court reporter. The court reporter will prepare a verbatim record of the meeting, which will be
sealed until conclusion of the litigation. The executive session is not open to the public pursuant
to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes.

For the third time since Feb. 23, the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has voted to approve a settlement agreement in connection with the county’s customary use complaint in Walton County Circuit Court—a case ongoing for over four years in which the county had been seeking to affirm the existence of recreational customary use of the beach

The latest vote took place at a May 15 BCC special meeting at Freeport Commons, with several commissioners also making brief remarks before voting.

Discussions on the settlement agreement have been mainly in closed session. The settlement agreement has remained confidential and has not been available for public disclosure. As of the May 15 meeting, there had been no announcement or official statement by the county about the settlement, and Walton County’s practice is not to discuss ongoing lawsuits in public. Also, to date it has not been revealed whether the three BCC approvals on the settlement were for the same settlement agreement or a different one, or for different versions of the agreement.

After discussing the settlement agreement in closed session on May 15, the BCC heard two proposed revisions to the agreement presented by Clay Adkinson, acting county attorney. Adkinson asked for a motion to approve and transmit the settlement agreement as discussed in the previous session with those changes—and for the BCC chairman to sign the revised agreement once signatures of the lawsuit parties participating in the settlement were received.

There was a motion for approval by District 1 Commissioner Boots McCormick, seconded by District 4 Commissioner Donna Johns.

“Before we vote,” said District 4 Commissioner Tony Anderson, “I want to say this. It’s with a heavy heart that we have come to this point. I still think customary use is entitled on the entire beach, but I don’t think we’re going to get better than this, the way the court system works.”

He continued, speaking of the settlement, “So it’s with a heavy heart that I vote yes on this…and I believe we all do…but when your lawyers tell you this is…probably as good as it’s going to get, and the rulings we’ve had, I think this is the best way for us to go right now.”

McCormick agreed, saying, “Just for the record, I concur with the same personal feelings, I hate this. From growing up here, I hate it. It’s a compromise, and I hate it.”

He continued, “But for me, when you’re in a situation where it’s kind of made clear up front, even apparently, by the judge, that neither party is going to get 100 percent of what they want, it pretty much forces us into just trying to get the best deal we can for our citizens, and I think we have achieved that.”

“I agree,” Anderson said.

“I concur with you all,” said BCC Chairman Danny Glidewell, “and I would also add that there’s conservatively eight million reasons that this was sort of the best way to go, and I think we did what we…or are going to do what we had to do.”

“And if I may add in, Mr. Chairman,” Adkinson interjected, “to put a finer point on that, your eight million reasons obviously reflect the amount of costs and fees that may be incurred in the trial—a conservative number was given to the board previously, and I’ll say it in public meeting now—of $3 to $4 million to make it through an eight-week trial with expectation it may take longer than eight weeks, on top of the money that’s already been spent.”

Adkinson stated that, based on what had been presented to the BCC the previous week (in closed executive session), with likely more “buy-in” by property owners who had intervened in the lawsuit in opposition, he believed that “we’ll secure at least two-thirds of the beaches in Walton County for some form of public access moving forward—and we hope that number is going to continue to grow with enforcement.”

“So, what this board has done,” Adkinson told the commissioners, “is secured approximately two-thirds of the beaches in Walton County without having to incur those trial fees.”

(It was not clarified whether the two-thirds calculation includes the approximately seven miles of state park beachfront—and/or the approximately 4.85 miles along the west end with a public use area from 50 to 85 feet in depth lying seaward of the Erosion Control Line (ECL), varying by location. The latter is with the exception of approximately 200 linear feet in the Sand Trap Road area, where the ECL was vacated. Other than the 4.85-mile west end section, for the rest of the 26-mile-long Walton County coastline plus the 200-foot-long section, the Mean High Water (MHWL) line serves as the boundary between upland property subject to private ownership and beach property “held in trust for all people,” per the Florida Constitution. In addition, some sections of the beach are county-owned or leased, and there are public dedications for other sections.)

With a vote taken, McCormick’s previous motion for approval carried unanimously (4-0).

The customary use case remains open, with the trial date tentatively set for June 12.

It sounds like we are all going to have a "heavy heart" and wealthy corporations will take another 1/3 of our beautiful natural resources. Wow!

“Well, gentlemen, I want to get this case to trial if it’s necessary before we all die of old age,” Walton County Circuit Court Judge David Green told attorneys representing clients in Walton County’s customary use complaint on June 1.

Not determined at this time is whether there will be a trial. However, Judge Green assured the attorneys that the case would go to trial if all issues were not resolved.

Judge Green’s remarks were at a June 1 court hearing. at the Walton County Courthouse. He is presiding over Walton County’s customary use complaint, a case filed in 2018 in which Walton County had been seeking to affirm a right by the public to customary recreational use of the beach on 1,194 privately-owned beachfront parcels.

A May 22 trial date had previously been set for the case. At the request of Walton County’s legal counsel, that date had previously been postponed and reset for June 12. The request had been explained as being related to the county legal counsel having worked with attorneys representing intervening parties to arrive at a settlement agreement, an agreement expected to resolve “the vast majority of the case.”

Hundreds of parties, mostly of those beachfront property owners, had intervened in the lawsuit in opposition to the county effort.

The settlement document has not been made available to the public at this time.

At the June 1 court hearing, legal counsel for the county and counsel for the intervenors reported that they were continuing to work toward settlement of the case.

WALTON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY

Clay Adkinson, Acting County Attorney
Frankie A. White, Assistant C/»unty Attorney
Matthew J. Richardson, Assistant County Attorney (ncmatt@coxvalton
161 SIOSS Avenue
DeFuniak Springs, FL 32433
m-,one (850)892-8110
Facsimile (850)892-8471

Date: June 7, 2023
From: Clay Adkinson
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
Take notice that the Walton County Board of County Commissioners will hold a
SPECIAL MEETING and a closed EXECUTIVE SESSION on June 26, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., or
as soon as possible after that time, at the Walton County Board of County Commissioners
Boardroom in the Walton County Courthouse located at 571 US Highway 90 East DeFuniak
Springs, Florida, to discuss the following:
In Re: Affirming Existence of Recreational Customary Use on l, 194 Private Properties Located
in Walton County, Florida, Case No. 2018-C4-547

The following persons will attend the meeting: the Board of Commissioners, William
"Boots" McCormick, Danny Glidewell, Donna Johns, and Tony Anderson; Tony Cornman,
Interim County Administrator; Clay Adkinson, Acting County Attorney; Matthew Richardson,
Assistant County Attorney; Frankie White, Assistant County Attorney; David Theriaque, Glenn
Burhans, Bill Warner and Eric Krebs, Special Counsel. This meeting will be recorded by a certified
court reporter. The court rqx)rter will prepare a verbatim record of the meeting, which will be
sealed until conclusion of the litigation. The executive session is not open to the public pursuant
to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes.
Clay Adkinson, Acting County Attorney
As approved by the BCC on January 24, 2023.

By DOTTY NIST

The public has now been able to learn more about the final settlement agreement approved by Walton County in connection with the county’s customary use court complaint, through which the county had been seeking to affirm a right by the public to customary recreational use on all privately-owned properties along the beachfront.

The 37-page settlement agreement first became available by public records request during the week of June 5. There has been no official announcement or statement by Walton County regarding the agreement.

The customary use case and approval of the settlement agreement

The Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) had approved the final version of the settlement agreement in a May 15, 2023, special meeting after a closed executive session.

The lawsuit had been filed in Walton County Circuit Court in December 2018, with notification provided to owners of 1,194 beachfront parcels. The court filing had been in line with requirements for affirmation of recreational customary use of the beach that went into effect with House Bill 631, legislation which had also negated Walton County’s customary use ordinance.

Hundreds of parties, mainly beachfront property owners, had opted to intervene in the lawsuit in opposition to the county court effort.

A trial had previously been scheduled to begin on May 22, 2023, but has been delayed at the request of Walton County’s legal counsel, who have been working to resolve all issues in the matter in order to avoid a trial. The counsel have stated that the settlement agreement was negotiated between representatives of the county and “several intervenors.”

In April 2023, prior to Walton County’s approval of the final version of the settlement agreement, the county had dropped several hundred parcels from the lawsuit. These are located in what was designated as Zone 1 in the lawsuit, consisting of the area between the western boundary of Topsail Hill State Park and the Walton-Okaloosa County line (approximately 4.85 miles in length)..

According to the settlement agreement, through the agreement Walton County consents to entry of a final judgment determining the issue of customary use to be “now and forever moot” for any parcel becoming part of the agreement. The parties entering into the agreement are to be dismissed from the lawsuit “with prejudice,” meaning that the county would not be able to go back to court in the future to seek to affirm customary use there.

Intervenors participating in the agreement would agree to pay their own attorney fees and costs in the lawsuit.

The agreement also provides for any of the participating parties’ pending counterclaims against Walton County to be dismissed by those parties “with prejudice,” or on a final basis.

Terms for participating parties

Terms for parties participating in the agreement include allowing the general public on their privately-owned parcels within the area 20 feet landward of the wet/dry sand line under some conditions. This area is known in the agreement as the Transitory Zone (TZ).

The agreement provides for specified uses only of the TZ by the public. The uses consist of walking, running, jogging, access to the wet sand and water for swimming, surfing, surf fishing, and skim boarding—and, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., “sunbathing uses.”

The agreement defines sunbathing uses as “consisting of standing, sitting, or laying [sic], either on the sand or on a beach towel or in/on a beach chair that is privately owned by the user and is not stored by nor associated with a third party vendor, condominium association, townhome association, hotel, motel, bed and breakfast…” Umbrellas are not mentioned with the “sunbathing” definition.

The TZ uses are to be allowed per the agreement regardless of whether all or any portion of the TZ is landward or seaward of the Mean High Water Line (MHWL).

Except for the uses specified, the agreement prohibits all other uses of the TZ—except for parcel owners, their renters and guests, and other users permitted by the owners on the participating party’s own beach parcel.

The agreement prohibits the general public from any area of a beach parcel owned by a party participating in the agreement except within the TZ for the specified TZ uses only.

The agreement does not prevent a property owner from entering into a contract with a beach vendor to put beach chairs and umbrellas on their property, including within the TZ, for the use of the owner, renters, guests, etc.

The agreement recognizes the property owner as having rights “superior” to those of the general public in the TZ, and an owner would not be prevented from using “all” of the TZ in line with the terms of the agreement.

It is also stated that the sunbathing uses in the TZ as defined in the agreement “may only be exercised by the General Public if the Beach Parcel Owner is not actively using that area.”

Failure of any member of the general public to cease the sunbathing uses upon the property owner’s request would be considered an act of trespass in violation of state statute.

The agreement provides for a property owner to exclude any member of the public who is not “respectfully conducting themselves,” or not complying with the agreement or the Walton County Beach Activities Ordinance, while engaging in TZ uses.

A property owner is to be allowed to designate a representative (potentially a security guard) to exclude unauthorized persons from the property, with that designation to be provided to Walton County Code Compliance and the WCSO.

The agreement also limits use of the TZ by the public to a maximum density of the equivalent of one person per five feet of beach parcel gulf frontage, with the county to enforce this limit.

The agreement requires the county to strictly enforce a restriction on beach chairs and/or umbrellas being set up seaward of the TZ (i.e., in the wet sand area) “by any person.” “The parties agree that such area shall be kept free of obstructions to provide for transit of required enforcement and safety personnel,” per the agreement.

Participating property owners are to have the right to put up signs as large as 24” x 36” from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. stating limits or restrictions on public access to their property—and the county is to work with the owners to arrive at signage informing the public about the TZ on the property and allowable uses.

Other county rights and responsibilities per the agreement

The agreement provides for joint training meetings between Walton County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) deputies and Walton County Code Compliance officers “on the county’s goal in respecting Participating Intervenor Beach Parcel Owners’ rights to use their Beach Parcels to the exclusion of the General Public, other than the General Public’s Transitory Uses within the Transitory Zones,” subject to conditions in the agreement.

Within one year from the effective date of the agreement, Walton County is to conduct a study to “determine the need for additional public recreational beach access parcels,” that will include a survey of the beaches. For privately-owned beach parcels with erosion, the county is to work with the owner to modify transitory uses as needed “until such time that Beach Parcel is renourished.” The county would also be allowed to acquire/purchase beach parcels either by negotiation or by eminent domain proceedings.

The agreement provides that Walton County will not allow any of the county’s experts who had been retained in the lawsuit to use any materials prepared for the case in “any proceeding attempting to establish customary use in Walton County.”

Property owners not entering the agreement

According to the 37-page document, intervenors in the lawsuit who do not join in the agreement will be dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice on certain conditions. Among these are that the parties have not filed counterclaims against the county or that they dismiss any such counterclaims, plus agree to pay their own attorney fees and costs. The “without prejudice” dismissal would then convert to a “with prejudice” dismissal if the county has not refiled in court before May 31, 2024, also subject to the previous conditions.

The several hundred parcels on the west end dismissed from the lawsuit by the county in April had been dismissed without prejudice. The document provides for those properties to also be dismissed with prejudice in the absence of any counterclaims against the county by the property owners and with their payment of their own fees and costs in the lawsuit.

For owners of properties noticed/included in the lawsuit who did not opt to intervene in the lawsuit, the agreement provides for the county to either dismiss those parcels without prejudice—or, if the county goes to court seeking to affirm customary use rights in those locations, for those rights by the public to be consistent with what exists on the properties entering into the agreement for setting up a TZ, per the agreement.

Upcoming court hearing

A 9 a.m. June 30 court hearing has been scheduled in Walton County Circuit Court in the customary use case. This is to be a case management hearing at which Walton County Circuit Court Judge David Green, presiding judge, will determine whether any unresolved issues remain and whether there is a need for a trial.

A trial date of July 10 has been set in the event a trial is still deemed to be required.

Seems complicated. Like swimmers and owners will need to meet on the beach with their lawyers and LEO daily.

WHat a mess. Greed ruins everything.

WOW! Let me see if I understand this correctly. The public can use 20 Feet of beach, the "TZ", at the "rate" of one
person per 5 ft of gulf front. That would be 10 persons for a 50 ft wide parcel. Yet the property owner would be allowed to fill the entire "TZ" from property line to property line with "beach setups" {chairs /umbrellas} which would be a lot more than 10 persons. By having the "BS" {see what I did there?} in place, it would mean that the property owner is "actively" using the area and therefore no public allowed.
In addition, the property owner is allowed to require that a person cease "sunbathing" or be considered "trespassing"!

What exactly did we "the public" gain from this agreement?

I can't wait to see all those "security guards" taking all those 24"x36" signs out to the beach at 07:00, and then gathering them ALL up at 19:00 each evening. Yeah right like that's going to happen!

I say let's litigate not negotiate ! FREE BEACHS FOR ALL !

Woof, no wonder this was worked out in secret. Folded like a lawn chair. Free the beach!!

Woof, no wonder this was worked out in secret. Folded like a lawn chair. Free the beach!!

Commissioners have to hold executive sessions so the opposition doesn't know the plan. Albeit this was worked out by idiots in power that prefer reelection over doing what's right.

SoWal resident Jacquee M. posted in Walton County Visioning group recently:

Here is my letter to the editor regarding the WC CUSTOMARY USE SETTLEMNT AGREEMENT. It was published yesterday in the Defuniak Herald Newspaper.

FEEL FREE TO SHARE FAR & WIDE! EMAIL THE COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner William Boots McCormick
mccboots@co.walton.fl.us
Commissioner Danny Glidewell
glidanny@co.walton.fl.us
Commissioner Donna Johns
johdonna@co.walton.fl.us
Commissioner Tony Anderson
andtony@co.walton.fl.us


It’s been a long journey since the fight for the customary use (CU) of our beaches became an issue with a powerful, political push allegedly from a former well connected local politico and their associates. In 2018 HB 631, designed to target the CU of Walton County beaches, was introduced in the Florida legislative session and was signed into law by Governor Rick Scott.

What has transpired since then has been a series of decisions and debacles that moved from the sunshine into the darkness. A passionate and engaged public with the most to lose, is being shielded from the negotiations of a supposed settlement. Two of the three interested parties are now involved in crafting the details.

Last week on June 14th I took a chance and asked Walton County public records for a copy of the CU settlement. The following day I received it. For the first time in months I, as a private citizen, I can read the terms. Prior, it’s been rumors about a settlement that have clued in the public about it’s possible existence. I thought that we were proceeding with the terms of HB 631 and the process it outlined. What happened and why weren’t we told about the transition? To think that one of the most consequential decisions in Walton County’s long history is being made out of the sunshine seems dishonest, foul and very shortsighted.

As I sit and read through the settlement I am outraged which turns to feelings of disgust and betrayal. I think to myself, who wrote this? Surely it can not be those “representing the public”. County leadership has always vocalized a steadfast support for the CU of Our Beaches since HB 631 became law, now they are surrendering.

I’ve been involved in community issues for several decades. Below, my opinions and my takeaways. I am not an attorney:
This agreement will supersede all others, thus abandoning the Doctrine of Customary Use forever.

Most of the power is being handed to a minority of Walton County owners.
5 years of gathering historical data, testimony, affidavits, means legal and research fees go to waste.
Promises of prompt and continual enforcement “…at all times…” will divert critical taxpayer dollars to a small minority of owners.

Emphasis is on minority property owner safety, i.e., overcrowding, when citizens have been clamoring for years to establish load factors across many areas of safety, I.e., roadways, parking and infrastructure, building, public beaches, etc.

Many beachfront owners “acquired” the sand between their original property line and the water, through stealthy quiet title actions. The county did not step in to represent the people’s interest. That has left a staggered line of properties along our shoreline that will create more confusion for all.

The text is confusing and subject to the whims of a changing minority.

Owners can opt out and/or enforce when they are not present.

The Walton County Beach Activities Ordinance will be promptly altered to meet the minority’s demands.

No mention of allowing umbrella use in a world fraught with skin cancer.

And the coup de grace, public curfews. Allowed use of the 20’ of sand from the water, which fluctuates, is from 9AM-4PM. That’s right, you must leave before sunset!

When tourism floats the county’s economy, how many additional hoops do our decision makers think that visitors will jump through while paying excessive rental prices before they decide to choose other destinations?
The beach is hallowed ground. It’s a sacred place where we go to relax, rejuvenate and forget our troubles. We share a mutual experience with friends, family and those that are not yet friends. Should this be adopted, our serenity will be artificially hijacked by signs, inches, guards and patrols by those that seek to exclude and hoard our precious white sand, our holy refuge. The heart and soul of our community will be changed forever. It is truly heartbreaking for this place that I love so much.

Jacquee Markel
Dune Allen Beach

So this is what we've been fighting 5 years for...?!? This settlement could have been reached on "day 2" of the lawsuit. ~80,000 residents in Walton now policed by 1,200 (1.5%) for part-time use of the beach.

So this is what we've been fighting 5 years for...?!? This settlement could have been reached on "day 2" of the lawsuit. ~80,000 residents in Walton now policed by 1,200 (1.5%) for part-time use of the beach.

But a lot of lawyers would have missed out on some boat payments.

What are we to become? The Hamptons of the South?

What are we to become? The Hamptons of the South?

We've jokingly called it the Hamptons of Atlanta for years. Guess we can throw Nashville in there now.

Disappointing...I would how many commissioners got campaign funds from the 1.5%

Disappointing...I would how many commissioners got campaign funds from the 1.5%

If you're serious it's public record.

Date: June 30, 2023


NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION

Take notice that the Walton County Board Of County Commissioners will hold a
SPECIAL MEETING and a closed EXECUTIVE SESSION on July 5 2023 at 9:00 a.m., or as
soon as possible after that time, at the South Walton County Courthouse Annex Board Room
located at 31 Coastal Centre Blvd., Santa Rosa Beach, to discuss the following:
In Re: Affirming Existence of Recreational Customary Use on 1,194 Private Properties Located
in Walton County, Florida, Case No. 2018-C4-547

The following persons will attend the meeting: the Board Of Commissioners, William
"Boots" McCormick, Danny Glidewell, Donna Johns, and Tony Anderson; Tony Cornman,
Interim County Administrator; Clay Adkinson, Acting County Attorney; Matthew Richardson,
Assistant County Attorney; Frankie White, Assistant County Attorney; David Theriaque, Glenn
Burhans, Bill Warner and Eric Krebs, Special Counsel. This meeting will be recorded by a certified
court reporter. The court reporter will prepare a verbatim record of the meeting, which will be
sealed until conclusion of the litigation. The executive session is not open to the public pursuant
to Section 286.011 (8), Florida Statutes.

Clay Adkinson, Acting County Attorney

As approved by the BCC on January 24, 2023.

That settlement is hard to read and even harder to believe. Private property owners now own the sunset!!! Wow...

By DOTTY NIST

It has been reported that Walton County’s customary use of the beach lawsuit has been resolved or is in the process of being resolved for all parcels except one. However, as of June 30 the county’s recent efforts to avoid the case going to trial had not succeeded.

In the original case filed in December 2018, Walton County had sought to affirm a right by the public to customary recreational use of the beach on all privately-owned parcels along the 26-mile coastline. Listed in the customary use court complaint had been 1,194 parcels.

Hundreds of parties, mainly beachfront property owners, had intervened in the lawsuit in opposition to the county court complaint.

Since the Walton County Board of County Commissioners’ (BCC) voting in February 2023 to pursue a settlement of the lawsuit, county legal counsel has been engaged in working with property owners to resolve the matter without the case having to go to trial. It had been anticipated that the trial would cost the county approximately $8 million or more.

In May 2023, the BCC had approved a final settlement agreement that would apply to lawsuit intervenors opting to participate in the agreement—and had authorized the BCC chairman to sign that agreement.

At a June 30, 2023, court hearing on the lawsuit in Walton County Circuit Court, Clay Adkinson, acting county attorney, reported that issues with the lawsuit had been resolved or were in the process of being resolved with all intervenors with the exception of one parcel. The manner of resolution was either through dismissals or parties entering into the settlement agreement.

Kent Safriet, an attorney representing a group of intervenors, spoke about the Alford parcel, one of the beachfront properties whose owners he is representing in the lawsuit.

Safriet discussed that the property owners, the Alfords, are opting to proceed in the customary use litigation and had also filed a counterclaim against the county in the lawsuit.

The Alford property is located in Miramar Beach, an area in which in April the county had dismissed several hundred parcels from the lawsuit. The Alford property was not among those, but Walton County had opted to drop from the case what was identified as Zone 1 in the lawsuit, the Miramar Beach area.

Property owners Lionel and Tammy Alford had filed their counterclaim in April 2021. The counterclaim, together with challenging/denying that Walton County is entitled to a declaration of customary use on their property, also charges that Walton County’s customary use ordinance, which was in effect from April 1, 2017 until July 1, 2018, represented an unconstitutional temporary “taking” of the counterclaimants’ property without compensation. Payment for damages, attorney fees, and other costs are sought by the property owners in connection with this filing.

In addition, with the counterclaim the Alfords are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Florida Supreme Court’s 1974 adoption of the doctrine of customary use was unconstitutional and that the doctrine is unconstitutionally vague and violates due process rights.

Discussion at the June 30 court hearing resulted in a decision by Walton County Circuit Court Judge David Green, presiding judge in the case, to schedule the takings portion of the Alfords’ counterclaim to be brought before the court on July 10.

At the request of members of Walton County’s legal counsel, Judge Green agreed to allow 90 days for counsel to prepare to proceed with the remainder of the trial and response to other allegations in the Alfords’ counterclaim related to customary use.

Glenn Burhans, a member of Walton County’s legal counsel, indicated that previously an eight-week trial had been anticipated—but that under the current circumstances he now expected a trial approximately five weeks in length.

Also at the June 30 hearing, Judge Green was presented with a document, a Partial Final Judgment agreed to by Walton County and intervenors in the lawsuit. The judgment included the settlement agreement approved by the county and the signatures of intervenors/owners of 35 properties.

Judge Green signed the document, and it was also recorded with the Walton County Clerk of Courts on June 30.

A number of joint dismissals had been filed with the court, as well, on June 29, applying to groups of intervenors r

epresented by seven different law firms.

The BCC has scheduled a special meeting and closed executive session in connection with the customary use case for 9 a.m. on July 5 at the South Walton Annex.

"...ordinance, which was in effect from April 1, 2017 until July 1, 2018, represented an unconstitutional temporary “taking” of the counterclaimants’ property without compensation. Payment for damages, attorney fees, and other costs are sought by the property owners in connection with this filing."

REALLY?! 80,000 Walton residents managed to accept a seemingly unfavorable settlement agreement, but these people can't let this go! Requesting compensation or 'payment for damages" for the 456 days the ordinance was made public.