Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

FORCED occupation of private property of unlimited people and unlimited equipment AGAINST the will of the property owner has NEVER been permitted in the State of Florida. Never ever.

Scj, my mistake on your civility. Using a trigger word like "forced" in bold caps along with the other bold caps has only one purpose and it is not civility. Your purpose here is to trigger an emotional reaction. Does that make you feel good about anything I wonder? I proved to you using the Statue that you posted that the local government entity had authority to "adopt" and "notify" their position of customary use. The lawsuit is an "affirmation" process where bpo's are given the opportunity to have a voice in the matter. The court must affirm or deny the county's declaration of customary use. If affirmed it has been said by the power brokers that they will appeal to the Supreme Court. So where is the force? Using forced occupation is really low on your part. The force you are talking about must exist in the twilight zone

An ordinance that permits unlimited people and unlimited equipment AGAINST the will of the property owner is FORCED occupation. It is illegal in the State of Florida for a local Government Entity to enforce such an ordinance without judicial approval.

The lawsuit is an opportunity for the BCC to PROVE that this occupation of private property against the will of the property owner in the State of Florida is Ancient, Reasonable, Without Interruption, and Without Dispute. If they cannot PROVE those 4 criteria then forced occupation will continued to be not allowed in the State of Florida.

Maybe Judge Green will change that and for the first time in the State of Florida history give judicial approval for occupation of private property against the will of the property owner so the BCC can pursue billions of tourists dollars?

If the BCC can make billions of tourists dollars (read the 2016 BCC minutes), why not just buy property and build more public beaches with parking and bathrooms instead of trying to take it away from the legally deeded property owners?

Only honest and respectful discussion is OK on this forum. Personal attacks are not allowed. This topic is important to our community but lines have been crossed on this thread. It will be locked for a time to allow reflection of everyone involved.

If our simple rules can't be followed then customary use discussion on this forum will end permanently.

Walton County

On December 11, 2018, Walton County, Florida, filed a “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use” in the Walton County Circuit Court. The case number is 2018-CA-547. A copy of the “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use” is attached hereto.



The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought are identified on pages 6-24 and 26-44 of the “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use” filed in Walton County Circuit Court 2018-CA-547 and on Exhibit “A” to the “Formal Notice of Intent to Affirm the Existence of Recreational Customary Uses on Private Property,” which is attached as Exhibit “1” to the “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use.”



A customary use affirmation is sought only on those portions of the properties referenced in Exhibit “A” to the “Formal Notice of Intent to Affirm the Existence of Recreational Customary Uses on Private Property” that consist of the dry sand area of the beach. The dry sand area of the beach is defined as the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean high water line to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation, usually the effective limit of storm waves, whichever is more seaward.



The detailed, specific, and individual uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought are as follows: traversing the beach; sitting on the sand, in a beach chair, or on a beach towel or blanket; using a beach umbrella that is seven (7) feet or less in diameter; sunbathing; picnicking; fishing; swimming or surfing off the beach; placement of surfing or fishing equipment; and building sand creations.



The sources of evidence that the County will rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute are listed on Exhibit “B” to the “Formal Notice of Intent to Affirm the Existence of Recreational Customary Uses on Private Property,” which is attached as Exhibit “1” to the “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use.”



As an owner of private property on which the County seeks to affirm the existence of recreational customary uses, you are entitled to intervene as a party defendant in Walton County Circuit Court Case Number 2018-CA-547. Pursuant to Section 163.035(3)(b)1., Florida Statutes, you must move to intervene in Walton County Circuit Court Case Number 2018-CA-547 within forty-five (45) days from publication of this Notice.



If the Circuit Court has already entered an Order allowing you to intervene as a Party Defendant in Walton County Circuit Court Case Number 2018-CA-547, the County stipulates that you do not need to move to intervene again. If you have any questions, please seek independent legal advice from an attorney.

Please be governed accordingly.

As someone once said: "Can't we all just get along?". I guess we can all get along on this forum as long as you're on the "right" side.

Kathryn, in terms of public recreational beach enjoyment (use) or private exclusive beach enjoyment (use) should there be a right side and a wrong side or something in the middle? If we want a peaceful community and enjoyable community don't we need to listen to both sides and come to some compromises? Those who are representing elite power (individual power with a direct effect on our legislative branch) do not believe in compromising exclusive private enjoyment because they have entitled themselves to their elite power and exclusive enjoyment of the beach. To these people it is not about community otherwise they would not be opposed to public customary recreational enjoyment with rules of density and behavior. They do not listen to the community but rather only those that agree with their purpose. Everyone else is irrational or worse in their minds. I wish I were wrong about their purpose but the evidence is that they want conflict and polarization within the community. Otherwise they would not hide their names and would represent the community as leaders with a positive community purpose. Yes both sides of the issue hide their names. I personally think it is wrong to provoke, disrespect and minimize those others that disagree with any issue. This forum allows it to a line. Both sides have crossed that line. I know you have a beef with the forum itself and it has affected they way you see this issue IMO. Or maybe you enjoy life more private and less public which is perfectly understandable. Either way this issue involves the community and has a lot of evidence to support public recreational enjoyment of the "beach". We should be able to disagree without disrespecting each other. We are not enemies. We are friends and neighbors. We are all good. We are all right. We all should all have individual power in our voice and our vote. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights protects us from abusive power. Abusive power hears no other voice, wants no other voice and denies us from having a voice. My only point is that we should all have a voice and this forum does give us a voice. All we have to do is be respectful. Why is that so hard?

BPOs are the defendants. In court. BPOs are being SUED...without any previous knowledge or offers of ANY compromise options.

WHEN did ANY of the plaintiffs suing the homeowners EVER exhibit ANY inkling of managing beach density? Ever.
I'll wait.

AM, The lawsuit is an affirmation process required by law. Your purpose is to create conflict. Beach density, behavior and vending are all being discussed and with community input. If you were part of this community you would know this .

Don't be so sure about your presumption about my contribution to this community. But that's not what we are here to talk about, is it? Unless you feel the need to distract from the FACT that you have NOT ONE SHRED of evidence that the plaintiffs are the least bit interested in managing beach use density.

For all of you who are on the sidelines, watching this debate, and believe you are for "customary use", all based on a clever social media campaign, maybe start asking those beach use density questions of the plaintiffs.

"Beach Use Density" the new buzz phrase made up by anonymous BFO's on an anonymous blog to suggest our shared beaches should have some sort of further restrictions of human visitation. Ridiculous. Beach Use Density. Ridiculous.

I'll check again, but I don't think that Walton Watchdog blog is anonymous.

"Beach Use Density" the new buzz phrase made up by anonymous BFO's on an anonymous blog to suggest our shared beaches should have some sort of further restrictions of human visitation. Ridiculous. Beach Use Density. Ridiculous.

Are the state park beaches ridiculous for maintaining a carrying capacity as required by law?

AM, please be sure to attend the public meeting on Dec. 17th. If you need transportation Walton County will assist. I am surprised that you are concerned about beach use but overlooked this I guess. I am also surprised that you did not give us the reference to the law that you refer to because being vague is frowned upon

Instead of changing the subject, how about answering my questions?
I'm experiencing "deja poo".
Hearing the same crap over again.

Alex, let me help those so concerned about the law and facts. Takes less time to do the credible research than to post about buzz phases or chauffeuring others to meetings.
FDEP https://floridadep.gov/file/9391/download?token=7BE86iBG
“Carrying capacities--limitations on the number of persons to use each site at a given time--can protect users' experiences by preventing overcrowding which (a) causes deterioration of the natural attribute of each use site and (b) impedes each user's ability to move freely and to fully enjoy the natural setting without undue distraction.”

State Parks have the “power” to assess fees to enter and to prohibit from state park beaches (1) all Walton vehicles (including trash collection vehicles and life guard vehicles), (2) alcohol, (3) overcrowding (density) “parks will close when they reach capacity”, (4) pets from designated areas, and (5) warn the public “Do not trespass on private property.”
Rules (Constitutional rights) private property owners are not entitled to with public CU of private property.
Florida State Park Rules
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Topsail is one of the best Parks for public beach recreation but you have to pay the fee and obey the rules.
Topsail Hill Preserve State Park

Alex, let me help those so concerned about the law and facts. Takes less time to do the credible research than to post about buzz phases or chauffeuring others to meetings.
FDEP https://floridadep.gov/file/9391/download?token=7BE86iBG
“Carrying capacities--limitations on the number of persons to use each site at a given time--can protect users' experiences by preventing overcrowding which (a) causes deterioration of the natural attribute of each use site and (b) impedes each user's ability to move freely and to fully enjoy the natural setting without undue distraction.”

State Parks have the “power” to assess fees to enter and to prohibit from state park beaches (1) all Walton vehicles (including trash collection vehicles and life guard vehicles), (2) alcohol, (3) overcrowding (density) “parks will close when they reach capacity”, (4) pets from designated areas, and (5) warn the public “Do not trespass on private property.”
Rules (Constitutional rights) private property owners are not entitled to with public CU of private property.
Florida State Park Rules
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Topsail is one of the best Parks for public beach recreation but you have to pay the fee and obey the rules.
Topsail Hill Preserve State Park

Bottom line...any “beach use density” (ridiculous term) or overcrowding that may occur is a direct result of House Bill 631 and any beachfront owner who throws up private property signs on our beaches. Limiting accessible beaches will directly create larger crowds at the beaches that are accessible. And sorry folks, this is America and you can’t limit peoples visitation to beaches. State parks are a different thing entirely. “Beach use density” ridiculous

I expect and appreciate State Parks limiting visitors to enhance the experience and protect the environment. I wouldn't mind county or even community activists advocating or instituting controls. But the horse is out the barn. We have free and open beaches in SoWal and always have. A silly argument to tell people now that they can't come or can only bring half the family. No one except a few single troublemakers are going to suggest it.

All USA and Florida have titles to ALL the lands. Federal Government, State of Florida, local counties, private corporations, and private individuals. There is NO difference in the property bundle of rights. If you believe State Parks are different show us why otherwise that is not a credible belief. Again and again and again FS163.035 (formally HB631) is an BPO due process law and has NO effect on CU or private property rights, including free speech and property owner signs. Any alternative statements are not credible unless it can be shown why. This IS America and we have the rule of law and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the LAND for ALL Americans, even minority American BPOs. CUnCourt

Topsail was purchased by the State of Florida in 1992 but was privately owned prior to that.
Parcels 05-3S-20-34000-001-0000.

Prior to 1992 would the private property owner have all bundle of rights including quiet uninterrupted use and enjoyment? If not, why not? The horse was already out of the barn then too? Yes?

Then how can the State of Florida now exercise their property rights or power to charge fees for use, restrict density, prevent vehicle on their property, or prohibit pets? But private property owners can not? Did the title rights change in 1992?

Fbb, I was hoping you would bail out AM

However I think you failed to locate the word "exclude" in the State Park Regulations. I think the word is "limit". Kind of seems more reasonable than exclude. We agree?

I don't totally disagree with you opinion about HB631 which ensures due process BUT it is a customary use affirmation "process". Before HB631 you still had the option to sue the local government entity. The only thing different is the designation of who is the defendant and who is the plantiff.

Bottom line...any “beach use density” (ridiculous term) or overcrowding that may occur is a direct result of House Bill 631 and any beachfront owner who throws up private property signs on our beaches. Limiting accessible beaches will directly create larger crowds at the beaches that are accessible. And sorry folks, this is America and you can’t limit peoples visitation to beaches. State parks are a different thing entirely. “Beach use density” ridiculous

Who in their right mind believes managing beach use density is "ridiculous"?

Not those who love the beach more than they love money, that's for sure.

Folks, the true interests of the CU Pirates are starting to come into focus. Pirates use something they don't own, without permission. Most of the thoughtful residents of Walton County do not want our beaches plundered.

(Hint: read the extensive list of housing development projects near the beach up for review on Wednesday. Heres a link:
Walton County - Meeting Information )

Who in their right mind believes managing beach use density is "ridiculous"?

See my post above. It's ridiculous at this stage now that we are at the point of millions of tourists a year. What are you going to do? Put up a wall at the border, signs, fences and have armed guards every 100 yards?

Oh wait. That is your wet dream I suppose.

Who in their right mind believes managing beach use density is "ridiculous"?

Not those who love the beach more than they love money, that's for sure.

Folks, the true interests of the CU Pirates are starting to come into focus. Pirates use something they don't own, without permission. Most of the thoughtful residents of Walton County do not want our beaches plundered.

(Hint: read the extensive list of housing development projects near the beach up for review on Wednesday. Heres a link:
Walton County - Meeting Information )

Again a losing argument - there are tens of thousands of housing units coming to Walton County in the next 20 years. The last 20 years is going to look like nothing. My advice to anyone on 30A who doesn't like traffic or people on the beach or no parking move now. A tidal wave is coming.

This stuff coming up you linked is a blip, nothing....


Walton's Landing - Request to continue to the December 18, 2019 TRC meeting. Project number MAJ19-000017 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a major development order application submitted by Innerlight Engineering Corporation, Inc. on behalf of D. R. Horton, Inc. requesting the approval to develop 73 single family lots, 98 townhomes, pool amenity, and a one acre commercial parcel 38.22 +/- acres with a Future Land Use of Mixed Use and Zoning of Village Mixed Use. The project is located at 2432 Chat Holly Road and is identified by parcel number 23-2S-20-33170-000-0130. (Continued from the November 20, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1189 - Pdf

Basin Bayou Estates - Request to approve by development order. Project number MIN19-000013 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a minor development order application submitted by David Forstrom on behalf of 7451 State Hwy 20 LLC, requesting approval to develop 5 single-family residential lots on +/- 2.86 acres with a future land use of Rural Residential and a zoning category of Rural Village. The project is located on the south side of State Highway 20, approximately 0.35 miles west of the intersection of Marsh Drive and State Highway 20, and is identified by parcel number 21-1S-20-32000-016-0010. (Continued from the November 20, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1190 - Pdf

Neisus LSA - Request to continue to the December 18, 2019 TRC meeting. Project number LUM19-000010 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a large scale amendment application submitted by Barnhill Civil, on behalf of Dirt Investments, LLC, requesting approval to change the future land use from Conservation Residential to General Agriculture with a zoning of Conservation Residential 1/2.5 to General Agriculture on 10.018 acres+/-. The project is 3000 feet south of the intersection of US Hwy 98 and Veterans Rd and is identified by parcel number 35-2S-20-33280-000-0230. (Continued from the November 20, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1191 - Pdf

Force Capital Partners Complex - Request to continue to the December 18, 2019 TRC meeting. Project number MAJ19-000019 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a major development order application submitted by Dewberry on behalf of Force Capital Partners LLC requesting the approval to construct a solar panel for an office/warehouse on 4 +/- acres with a Future Land Use of Industrial and Extractive Uses and Zoning of Light Industrial. The project is located on the west side of CR 393 approximately 4500 LF north of the US Hwy 98 and CR 393 intersection and is identified by parcel number(s) 27-2S-20-33210-000-0030. (Continued from the November 20, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1192 - Pdf

Bayview Estates Plat - Request to continue to the December 18, 2019 TRC meeting. Project number PLA19-000026 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a plat application submitted by Core Engineering and Consulting, on behalf of GE/Bayview Estates, LLC, requesting approval to plat 14 single family homes on 2.57 +/- acres. The property has a future land use of Residential and a zoning of Neighborhood Infill. The project is located from US Highway 98 at N. Holiday Road, 0.4 miles to Forest Shore Drive, west on Forest Shore Drive 0.6 miles to Walton Way and project site is on the left, and the property is identified by parcel number 19-2S-21-42000-005-0000. (Continued from the November 20, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1193 - Pdf

Christ the King Episcopal Education Building - Request to continue to the December 18, 2019 TRC meeting. Project number MIN19-000045 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a minor development order application submitted by Dewberry Engineers, Inc. on behalf of Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast, Inc. requesting to expand their current facility by adding an additional 10,000 SF children's teaching facility building on 9.0 +/- acres with a future land use of Conservation Residential & a zoning of Conservation Residential 2:1. The project is located from the intersection of Highway 98 and CR 393 travel North approximately 0.47 miles and entrance is on the right and is identified by parcel number(s) 26-2S-20-33200-000-0570. (Continued from the November 20, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1194 - Pdf

Walmart Exterior Modification - Request to continue to the December 18, 2019 TRC meeting. Project number MIN19-000044 is being reviewed by Tim Brown. This is a minor development order application submitted by WD Partners on behalf of Walmart Stores East LP, requesting an exterior building modification to include a 1,291 square foot addition, an overhead canopy and restriping of parking for online grocery pickup on +/- 10.15 acres with a future land use of Mixed Use and a zoning category of Coastal Center Mixed Use. The project is located at the northwest corner of U.S. Highway 98 West and West Hewett Drive and is identified by parcel number(s) 30-2S-20-33230-000-001D. (Continued from the November 20, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1195 - Pdf

Sweetwater Lane RV Park - Request to continue to the December 18, 2019 TRC meeting. Project number MIN19-000032 is being reviewed by Tim Brown. This is a minor development order application submitted by Jenkins Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Denese Tolbert, requesting approval to develop an RV park with associated infrastructure in 3 phases on 1.82 +/- acres with a future land use of Rural Residential & and zoning category of Rural Village. The project is located at 135 Sweetwater Lane and is identified by parcel number(s) 27-1S-19-23000-042-0040 and 27-1S-19-23100-000-0210. (Continued from the November 20, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1186 - Pdf

Highlands at Seagrove Amendment - Request to approve by development order. Project number MIN19-000038 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a minor development order application submitted by Dunlap & Shipman, PA on behalf of Seagrove Highlands Condominium, requesting to amend the current Development Order to move one residential unit to the end of Somerset Bridge Rd, move the compost/garden and reduce the number of approved condominium units of 2 parcels on 13.98 +/- acres with a future land use of Mixed Use & a zoning of Small Neighborhood. The project is located approximately 1.5 blocks north of E. CO Highway 30A on Somerset Bridge Rd and is identified by parcel number(s) 13-3S-19-25000-007-0040 and 14-3S-19-25000-012-0000. (Continued from the November 20, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1196 - Pdf

Ashley Place - Request to approve by development order. Project number MIN19-000043 is being reviewed by Tim Brown. This is a minor development order application submitted by Choctaw Engineering, Inc. on behalf of 393 Holdings MFT, LLC, requesting approval to construct eight multifamily units in four buildings with associated infrastructure on 4.85 +/- acres with a future land use of Residential and a zoning category of Neighborhood Infill. The project is located on the west side of South CR 393, north of White Cottage Road and south of Edgewood Terrace, and is identified by parcel number(s) 34-2S-20-33270-008-0001. (Continued from the November 6, 2019 TRC meeting.)

19-1197 - Pdf

Miramar Beach Hotel Amendment - Request to approve by development order. Project number MIN19-000049 is being reviewed by Tim Brown. This is a minor development order application submitted by Choctaw Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Miramar Beach Hotel, LLC, requesting approval to fill the existing wetland, reconfigure the drainage, reconfigure the parking lot, reconfigure the parking lot landscaping and reconfigure the parking lot lighting on 1.59 +/- acres with a future land use of Mixed Use and a zoning category of Coastal Center. The project is located on the north side of U.S. Hwy 98, west of Forest Shore Drive and east of North Holiday Road and is identified by parcel number(s) 29-2S-21-42000-011-0018.

19-1198 - Pdf

Coursey Garden Center - Request to approve by development order. Project number MIN19-000050 is being reviewed by Tim Brown. This is a minor development order application submitted by Baker Engineers, LLC on behalf of Hilda Coursey, requesting to develop a 1412 square foot garden center and plant nursery on 18.82 +/- acres with a future land use of Residential and a zoning category of Urban Residential. The project is located on the east side of Juniper Lake Road, north of Magnolia Boulevard and south of Jennie Circle and is identified by parcel number(s) 22-3N-19-19000-008-0000 and 22-3N-19-19000-009-0000.

19-1199 - Pdf

Mack Bayou Residences PUD - Request to approve by final order and PUD Overlay Ordinance. Project number MAJ19-000024 is being reviewed by Renee Bradley. This is a major development order application submitted by Innerlight Engineering Corp., on behalf of Crest Residential LLC, requesting the approval a PUD Overlay and Technical PUD to construct a residential community consisting of 252 multi-family apartments, 24 townhomes, 12 single family homes with 15,000 +/- sf amenities, bike path, public park and future commercial development on 37.63 +/- acres with a Future Land Use of Mixed Use/Residential and Zoning of Small Neighborhood/Infill. The project is located 0.7 miles from the intersection of U.S. Hwy 98 and Mack Bayou Road, on the right side of Mack Bayou Road, and is identified by parcel number(s) 25-2S-21-42000-027-0000, 25-2S-21-42350-000-0020, and 25-2S-21-42350-000-0090.

19-1200 - Pdf

Watersound Origins Phase 5 - Sales Center and Lot Line Shift - Request to approve by development order. Project number MIN19-000052 is being reviewed by Renee Bradley. This is a minor development order application submitted by Innerlight Engineering Corporation on behalf of Kolter Homes, LLC, requesting approval to build a sales center and model home, and a 6' lot line shift between lots 2 & 3 within Watersound Origins Naturewalk Phase 1 on 1.36 +/- acres with a future land use and zoning of BWSP/Village Center. The project is located at the intersection of N. Watersound Parkway and Pathways Drive and is identified by parcel number 24-3S-18-16000-001-0010.

19-1201 - Pdf

The Cove at Santa Rosa Beach - Request to approve by development order. Project number MIN19-000051 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a minor development order application submitted by Jenkins Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Wadhew Development, LLC., requesting to develop ten single family lots on 2.51 +/- acres with a future land use of Residential & a zoning of Low Density Residential 4:1. The project is located 0.02 miles south of Sea Croft Drive at the intersection of Maxwell Ave & Carefree Ln. and is identified by parcel number(s) 02-3S-20-34160-000-0120.

19-1202 - Pdf

Southeast Storage Facility Addition - Request to approve by final order. Project number MAJ19-000023 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a major development order application submitted by Avcon Inc. on behalf of 11900 HWY 98 LLC, requesting approval to remove an existing 150 mini-storage units building and construct a 2nd 3-story 61,275 sf building for a total development of 122,550 sf of self-storage on 4.01 +/- acres with a Future Land Use of Mixed Use and Zoning of Coastal Center Mixed Use. The project is located on the north side of U.S. Hwy 98 approximately 0.05 miles from the U.S. Hwy 98 & N Holiday Rd intersection and is identified by parcel number(s) 29-2S-21-42000-006-00A0.

19-1203 - Pdf

Green Street Improvements - Request to approve by development order. Project number MIN19-000053 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a minor development order application submitted by O'Connell & Associates on behalf of Sam Berry Blair, Jr. & J. Stuart Collier, Jr., is requesting approval to update an existing private right-of-way and construct a new stormwater management facility on 0.376 +/- acres with a future land use of Residential & a zoning of Neighborhood Infill. The project is located south of CR 30A, approximately 0.02 miles west of the Watersound Parkway and E CR 30A intersection and is identified by parcel number(s) 27-3S-18-16000-010-0040.

19-1204 - Pdf

East End 5 MG Tank & Booster Pump Station SSA - Request to approve by ordinance. Project number LUM19-000012 is being reviewed by Bob Baronti. This is a small scale amendment application submitted by Ryan Douglass, P.E., on behalf of Florida Community Services Corp. D. B. A. Regional Utilities requesting approval for a future land use change from Village Center and a zoning district change of Village Center to a future land use of Public Facilities and Institutional and zoning district of Public Facilities and Institutional on 4 +/- acres. The project is located on the south side of U.S. Hwy 98, approximately one mile from the intersection of Watersound Parkway and U.S. Hwy 98, and is identified by parcel number 26-3S-18-16000-001-0070.

19-1205 - Pdf

Bannerman Lot S/D Plat - Request to approve by final plat. Project number PLA19-000031 is being reviewed by Bob Barronti. This is a plat application submitted by Innerlight Engineering Corp, on behalf of LGM, LLC, requesting approval to plat 5 lots on 2.92 +/- acres. The property has a future land use of Conservation Residential and a zoning of Conservation Residential. The project is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of CR 30A and Bannerman Beach Lane and is identified by parcel number 07-3S-19-25000-004-00A0.

19-1206 - Pdf

Request to approve the 2020 TRC Schedule of Meeting Dates.


ADJOURN:

I agree with Jim Tucker that the horse is out of the barn. IMO that’s what’s caused so much of the current overcrowding. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to prevent future unbridled growth. If CU wins then all of the developers can rightfully tell buyers, and buyers can tell renters, that they have the legal right to use all of the beach areas, not just those that are public. The County, realtors, and other local businesses can advertise the same. We’ll be further encouraging even more overcrowding. Maybe we don’t have to control beach density with physical barriers. Controlling capacity would be a step in the right direction. I agree with bob1 that if the County and the developers have their way, the last 20 years are going to look like nothing compared to the next 20 years. We can’t do anything about the last 20 years, but we should try to do something about the next 20 years. The more tourists, the more local businesses. The more local businesses, the greater the need for housing and infrastructure (schools, fire, police, etc.) for locals who work in those businesses. It’s a vicious cycle and I think CU will make it worse.