Seagrove Villas Commercial, again

[idlewind]

From what I have seen, actual laws in this county are irrelevant. We pay an attorney to fight for what the BCC feels is needed. Totally ignoring laws, codes, and rules. Almost like an Attorney Full Employment rule or something to that effect.

Come on Wrobert, you too? I expect most of this anti-personal property stuff, but from you, I do not get it. This property has been commercial for over 50 years, can you explain to me why the propety owners should not have a right to update and upscale their COMMERCIAL property?

 

[NotDeadYet]

From what I have seen, actual laws in this county are irrelevant. We pay an attorney to fight for what the BCC feels is needed. Totally ignoring laws, codes, and rules. Almost like an Attorney Full Employment rule or something to that effect. __________________

Another first for SoWal! wrobert and I found something we can agree on!

 

[NotDeadYet]

This property has been commercial for over 50 years, can you explain to me why the propety owners should not have a right to update and upscale their COMMERCIAL property?

If this is your position, then logically you must oppose all zoning laws. This property was not commercial for 50 years, because we have not had zoning in this county for 50 years. (Technically, it's not "zoning," it's land use designations, a sort of hybrid form of zoning.) If you take the position that any use that predates zoning should remain that way forever, then you can really never have effective zoning except for vacant parcels, and even then some of the owners of the vacant parcels would complain they weren't getting the same benefits as owners of already developed property, depending on how they wanted to develop their property.
The proposed plans for this site are way more than "updating and upscaling." Furthermore, the code (which is the law) prohibits enlargement of a non-conformity, which is what Seagrove Villas is, and there are other prohibitions as well as noted above by SJ. So that's why, because it's the law, as affirmed by the courts. I thought you believed in the rule of law?

 

[Beach Runner]

I am so confused by all of this, I see the signs that are counterintuitive to the posts that I read on this message board. Maybe sleep will help.


And another issue in the 'hood. What is going on at the faux Southern plantation facade to the north of Market Cafe that has a Hotel Viridian sign in front? How did I miss the scoop on that? I mean, it went from gourmet grocer to church to bank to whatever. I dunno,

 

[Here4Good]

Come on Wrobert, you too? I expect most of this anti-personal property stuff, but from you, I do not get it. This property has been commercial for over 50 years, can you explain to me why the propety owners should not have a right to update and upscale their COMMERCIAL property?

Because the FLUM doesn't allow it. See, that's why you have an attorney when you're buying a multi-million dollar piece of property which you intend to tear down and modify.

If you bought a house on 1.5 acres, would you assuime that it was okay to tear it down and build six houses? How about 10 houses? There are houses built around here on less than .1 of an acre, so that must be OK. It's still a residential use, right?

Of course not, you'd check that before you bought the house, not sue the county because you didn't do your due diligence.

 

[coondog]

The property has been de-linked from Naturewalk, hence the prior owner's plan to develop a massive Beach Club development is no longer going to happen. A foreclosure judgment has been issued and the lender is simply seeking to obtain acknowledgment for what the property is, and what is has been for 50 years - a commerical property.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Because the FLUM doesn't allow it. See, that's why you have an attorney when you're buying a multi-million dollar piece of property which you intend to tear down and modify....

Your statement makes me wonder... Maybe Nature Walk's attorney continues to fight this for fear of being sued, himself, by Nature Walk, for letting them go through with the purchase of what he should have known wouldn't work. That would make sense. Plus, the more he fights this, the more he can bill NatureWalk.

 

[NotDeadYet]

the lender is simply seeking to obtain acknowledgment for what the property is, and what is has been for 50 years - a commerical property.

Phooey, I don't think so. There was a court decision, two in fact. You are saying this isn't good enough for the lender??

 

[Smiling JOe]

The property has been de-linked from Naturewalk, hence the prior owner's plan to develop a massive Beach Club development is no longer going to happen. A foreclosure judgment has been issued and the lender is simply seeking to obtain acknowledgment for what the property is, and what is has been for 50 years - a commerical property.

Please show me in the County Land Use Code or FLUM (Future Land Use Map) where it states that this property is commercial property. Plat Book 2, page 50, specifically shows this property as four single-family residential lots, when it was developed by Cube and Louise McGee in 1950. See attached, and if you don't know what you are looking at, the subject property is the area darkened area in the lower right corner, indicated on the plat as lots 14,15,16,17, of Block 7. So, even though the Land Use Code hasn't been around 50 years, the plat shows the original intent of the use of the property, which is the same as the Land Use Code -- Single Family Residential (four lots). I'll add that the property is surrounded by the Gulf to the south and single family residences on the other three sides. It is smack-dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

 

[coondog]

The Court decision dealt with the County's improperly approving the development of the Beach Club, not the fact that the property has been a commercial use for over 50 years.