based on a beach walkover? quite a stretch.
I, too, doubt the private beach walkover being the thing that sold investors on these condos. HOWEVER, if the buyers who are looking for a way out, I am sure that the private walkover will have been a very important selling point when originally the project was originally pitched to them. The developers have already spent close to $9,000,000 for two lots as potential private beach accesses, so they, too, feel like it was a critical part of the sales Redfish Village project.
Interestingly enough, the first lot which they purchased for the private access location is the better of the two locations for two reasons, in my opinion. It is the closer of the two properties to Redfish Village. Also, it leads to public beaches, so there shouldn't be a problem with onwers and guests sitting on someone's privately owned beach property. The problem with that particular lot is that the zoning is preservation residential allowing for even less density than the lot which they are trying to use for the private access. Seems a bit twisted to me, but that is the red tape in which Redfish Village seems to be stuck.
Personally, I think the County and these new developments should have worked more closely in regards to providing more public access to the beach, not private. In a previous post, I mentioned that I was against all four of these developments because of the impact which they will have on the beaches and Big Redfish Lake. I also am against Redfish Village and Lakeside at Blue Mtn Beach (I drove over and looked at that name) due to the additional stress it will have on the public access. I am not picking on these two. Any developments which will cause more stress on existing, limited public accesses is a major concern which the County needs to address. Lack of restrooms at these entry points to the beaches also needs to be remedied.
