Redfish Village

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Commercial or VMU would probably work for an access/beach club, but I can't imagine anything less than those classifications would pass....involvement of surrounding property owners should definitely have an impact on any decision.

I hope so.

I'm not against (proper) development. It's inevitable...some may not like it, but it's still inevitable. When I saw Redfish Village going up, "Oh well...more people" pretty much summed up my feelings. I immediately knew the CR83 public beach access would get a shot of increased traffic. Again this was expected.

I'm sure there were those that felt the same way 20 years ago when our building was constructed regarding more people coming to the area.

But I strongly feel that Redfish Village's attempts to "enhance" their commercial/residential development by converting an already developed single residential beachfront residential lot into a private thoroughfare and especially a place for private amenities for 80 condominums trample on the rights of the adjacent and nearby property owners. The right to quiet enjoyment of private property is "a sacred and historic American guarantee".

I don't see any shades of gray here. I just hope that the Walton County Board of Commissioners and Planning & Development both do the right thing.

 

[Advance The Man]

The lot was or still is improved w/a duplex. It is zoned Infill which would allow this proposed development. This is allowed with a major development order and required approval by both the BCC and the Planning Board. This would likely take 5 months.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

The lot was or still is improved w/a duplex.

Yes, there is currently a duplex located there that was built over 25 years ago.

It is zoned Infill which would allow this proposed development.

Infill is the key word here.

From Walton County Planning and Development Code under Infill Projects:
"(aa) New development must show its place within the neighborhood it infills, including the neighborhood?s ultimate size, boundary and center, and shall be functionally related to the existing pattern of development for that neighborhood and be compatible with that development plan."

I'm trying but I don't see how a private access for 80 REMOTELY condos right in between two single family homes is "functionally related to the existing pattern of development" for the Blue Mountain Road Area. This is not aimed at you, Advanced, but more of a rhetorical question.

This is allowed with a major development order and required approval by both the BCC and the Planning Board. This would likely take 5 months.

Also, I believe, it requires a public hearing.

It appears you have some knowledge and/or experience with these issues. Any further info that you can share is always very much appreciated.

 

[Advance The Man]

I won't speculate if Planning or BCC will allow it. But would be surprised if the neighbors of this proposed project did not become vocal to the BCC.

 

[Kurt]

They have finished a 3BR model that I shot yesterday - http://www.emeraldcoasttours.com/417-m1redfishvillage

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Redfish Village - No Deeded Beach Access Yet - BCC Meeting on Tuesday Nov. 14th

On Tuesday, Nov. 14th, the BCC meeting will include the following in the agenda:

5:10 PM George R. Miller, Attorney - Lot 260 Blue Mountain Road

Redfish Village still has not secured the permits needed to utilize the 2nd lot they purchased at 260 Blue Mountain Road for the purpose of private deeded access for all the owners, guests and invitees of Redfish Village (80 condos) as stated in their literature and on their website.

The use of the first lot for this purpose was denied by the County because of residential zoning. At the end of August, Redfish Village purchased this 2nd lot just down the road for the same purpose. This lot is located between two single family homes just 3 lots west of the 83 access. The zoning difference is residential "infill".

What is to be determined at the BCC meeting is the following...whether or not the project would be a Minor Development Order or a Major Development Order.

If it is considered a Minor Development Order by the County Commisssioners, then basically the developer has their way with no neighborhood involvement or review.

If it is considered a Major Development Order, the developer must then follow the normal course of such an action:
1. advertise their intent in a local paper
2. notify all property owners within 300 feet by certified mail
3. hold a public meeting

It should be obvious that the developer wants the County to classify it as a Minor Development Order.

Feedback from "professionals" indicate that this "by its very nature" should be considered a Major Development Order.

It very much appears that if there was no neighborhood involvement, the developer would have had their way with no resistance. They tried it on the first lot and failed. Now they are attempting a variation (via "infill" zoning) of the same idea on a 2nd residential lot.

Note that if the Commissioners say its a Minor Development Order, then whatever the developer and the Planning Department agree to behind closed doors goes. The Commissioners (and the public) have no further say.

The intent of this post is not to determine whether the lot should be used for this purpose but rather that the County should do the right thing and classify it as a Major Development Order. Then the issue can be PROPERLY addressed.

Your attendance at this meeting can affect the outcome.

 

[Pirate]

Did Ro build a seawall on the lot?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Did Ro build a seawall on the lot?

Sorry, it's not that spicey.