• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
Beach access should not be an issue because there are several for that area. Private beach access IS the issue. There are several public beach accesses in that area, although I know of one which is still closed from storm damage.

If the developers had left out the word "private" when describing beach access, there would not be a problem for the developers. However, there would still be the problem of many more users being dumped onto the beach in that area.

The ability to access the beach is not the issue. The issue is the promised private access on the specific lot east of 83, referenced by legal description and the attached survey in the contract. If this is not provided, the seller is in breach of contract.

Is there an echo in here?
 

Bob

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2004
10,364
1,391
O'Wal
Can somebody from each camp give me a Cliff Note's version of the dispute here? I am way too lazy to read all the thread, but want to know why everyone sounds like they are about to beat the living crap out of each other.
Thanks-S'ape
There's new oil rigs in BMB so that we can restore the shoreline.
 

Advance The Man

Beach Lover
May 19, 2005
54
0
Developers building condo project with promised private access with amenities.

The proposed lot is in BMB.

BMB residents don't want it there.

Can somebody from each camp give me a Cliff Note's version of the dispute here? I am way too lazy to read all the thread, but want to know why everyone sounds like they are about to beat the living crap out of each other.
Thanks-S'ape
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
Developers building condo project with promised private access with amenities.

The proposed lot is in BMB.

BMB residents don't want it there.

...and if the developer cannot provide public access, there could be trouble, as many people who have reservations on the condos, might be able to use that as a way to get out of their contracts, which would leave the developer and the lender in a heap of mess, while leaving a ghost village on the corner of 83/30A. There is serious precedent which will be set by the decisions made regarding this private access for an 80 unit condo in this neighborhood zoned for a maximum of 8 units per acre.
 

Go Gators

Beach Comber
Aug 5, 2005
9
0
how did/do they plan to keep this access private and exclude others from using this so called "private access."

why did they purchase another lot for this purpose after they had units under contract?

"scratch a lie, catch a thief." Ray charles
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
how did/do they plan to keep this access private and exclude others from using this so called "private access."

why did they purchase another lot for this purpose after they had units under contract?

"scratch a lie, catch a thief." Ray charles

They have mentioned placing a gate on the north and south ends of the lot. My guess is that one will need an access card to gain entry. That is only a guess, as I have not heard how access will be granted.

Your second question is a little vague. I am not sure if you are asking why they purchased a second lot, or why they didn't have a lot purchased with private access approved prior to promising it and taking reservations. :dunno:

The first lot they purchased for access is zoned preservation residential which I believe limits density to two units per acre. The second lot which they purchased is zoned NPA Infill with limits on max density to 8 units per acre, and the infill zoned lot may allow for a little more liberal uses. I have not looked at the zoning for either of these two properties, but that zoning info was coming from the representatives of the developer. According to the developer's representative, it is their intent to sell the other lot, when they are allowed to use the one lot for private access.
 
Last edited:

Go Gators

Beach Comber
Aug 5, 2005
9
0

not what minutes for meeting says with regard to what they're doing with lots:


6) REDFISH VILLAGE GATEWAY - Project number 06-00100133 being a major development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Les Porterfield as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0032 consisting of a restroom and pavilion on 0.63 ? acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Jason Bryan. This site is located three lots west of CR 83 and Blue Mountain Road intersection, south of Blue Mountain Road.

12) REDFISH VILLAGE AMENDMENT TO D/O 402003 - Project number 06-013-00055 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 27, 2006 by Les Porterfield as Engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0081 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to add a dock and move preservation on site with future land use designation of Village Mixed Use being reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located at the corner of CR 30A and CR83 (2064 West County Hwy 30A).
 

edroedrog

Beach Lover
Dec 15, 2006
95
0
Do you have a question about this? Not sure what you are asking? gogator
 
Last edited:

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
not what minutes for meeting says with regard to what they're doing with lots:


6) REDFISH VILLAGE GATEWAY - Project number 06-00100133 being a major development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Les Porterfield as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0032 consisting of a restroom and pavilion on 0.63 ? acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Jason Bryan. This site is located three lots west of CR 83 and Blue Mountain Road intersection, south of Blue Mountain Road.

12) REDFISH VILLAGE AMENDMENT TO D/O 402003 - Project number 06-013-00055 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 27, 2006 by Les Porterfield as Engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0081 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to add a dock and move preservation on site with future land use designation of Village Mixed Use being reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located at the corner of CR 30A and CR83 (2064 West County Hwy 30A).
I don't understand your statement. Item 6 is for the lot to the west of the 83 public access. Item 12 is not for the gulf front lot to the east of the 83 public access. Rather, it is for the property on the corner of 30A and 83. They are looking to put in a dock on Big Redfish Lake on the north side of 83, I guess.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter