Redfish Village Beach Access

[John R]

Your issue, as stated in previous posts, seems to be about parking. That's not the issue in this thread. The county has approved a project that, with it's actions, is going to harm a small portion of the beach and have negative future ramifications for the rest of the beach. That's what has to be challenged today and not the future access and parking 20 years from now. If this project is allowed to occur, the beach usage and atmosphere will be changed forever. BMB will no longer be the quiet, clean, uncluttered and natural spot it has been for decades. Folks actually own property here because of these qualities!

Walker, I understand your fear. If this gets approved, it will, as I've stated before, set a precedent, which will have ramifications up and down 30A. Yes, your situation needs to be settled today, but the scenario Smiling Joe presents must be addressed today as well, because everyone who moves here will be coming to the beach one way or the other. The county is growing too fast for govt. to keep up, and we all need to figure out the plan before it's too late. Please keep us updated on the meeting.

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ...why would you not want to own beachfront property? It's a beautiful thing to be a part of on a daily basis.

Yes, the beach is a beautiful thing to be a part of on a daily basis, and one not need build a home on top of a fragile, and ever-changing dune system to enjoy the beach. Maybe in 1979, this wasn't a big issue, but with so many people building on the dunes since that time, we have come to realize that it is a big deal and greatly affects the beach

You say the beach access parking is not the issue, but that is one of about three major concerns that opponents of this Private Beach Access -- parking up and down the streets by owners and guests of Redfish Village. Add to that the numerous lots in Lakeside at Blue Mtn, and you will have more parking problems than you can shake a stick at. Add to that any other people building on existing lots in SoWal, and the parking issue becomes even greater. You may own the beach in front of your house, but you don't own the street in front of your house. When people illegally park on the side of the street, you will not have the authority to hire a tow truck to come from Ft Walton Beach to remove the vehicles. The Sheriff has previously stated that the Sheriff's Office will not enforce parking violations. They have more important things to do with their limited staff. If you don't think that parking is pertinent to this thread, why don't you cross that off of your short list of reasons against this private access?

 

[BMBWalker]

Walker, I understand your fear. If this gets approved, it will, as I've stated before, set a precedent, which will have ramifications up and down 30A. Yes, your situation needs to be settled today, but the scenario Smiling Joe presents must be addressed today as well, because everyone who moves here will be coming to the beach one way or the other. The county is growing too fast for govt. to keep up, and we all need to figure out the plan before it's too late. Please keep us updated on the meeting.

John R...concern would be a better choice of words.

I've noticed in some of your other postings you are quick to point out when someone hijacks a thread for their own personal issues. I'm surprised to see you do this now since you created this thread and named it "Redfish Village Beach Access". Lets try and stay focused!

Brad Pickel created a thread recently requesting suggestions from the community concerning parking and parking decks for future beach users. Smiling Joe chimed in with his usual comments and suggestions concerning the issue and I believe you did too. My point is that there is already a thread on this subject and it concerns future developments and parking needs; this thread concerns an issue and development that is imminently close to completion...big difference!

Please, take your future parking issues to Brad's thread...not appropriate here.

 

[BMBWalker]

Yes, the beach is a beautiful thing to be a part of on a daily basis, and one not need build a home on top of a fragile, and ever-changing dune system to enjoy the beach. Maybe in 1979, this wasn't a big issue, but with so many people building on the dunes since that time, we have come to realize that it is a big deal and greatly affects the beach

You say the beach access parking is not the issue, but that is one of about three major concerns that opponents of this Private Beach Access -- parking up and down the streets by owners and guests of Redfish Village. Add to that the numerous lots in Lakeside at Blue Mtn, and you will have more parking problems than you can shake a stick at. Add to that any other people building on existing lots in SoWal, and the parking issue becomes even greater. You may own the beach in front of your house, but you don't own the street in front of your house. When people illegally park on the side of the street, you will not have the authority to hire a tow truck to come from Ft Walton Beach to remove the vehicles. The Sheriff has previously stated that the Sheriff's Office will not enforce parking violations. They have more important things to do with their limited staff. If you don't think that parking is pertinent to this thread, why don't you cross that off of your short list of reasons against this private access?

Smiling Joe...please read my post #213 to John R; applies to you also.

Sorry to see you go over to the dark side!

 

[BMBWalker]

Walker, I understand your fear. If this gets approved, it will, as I've stated before, set a precedent, which will have ramifications up and down 30A. Yes, your situation needs to be settled today, but the scenario Smiling Joe presents must be addressed today as well, because everyone who moves here will be coming to the beach one way or the other. The county is growing too fast for govt. to keep up, and we all need to figure out the plan before it's too late. Please keep us updated on the meeting.

John R...BTW, did you ever get the name of the lovely lady on your posts?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I do not plan on getting into this hornet's nest except to let everyone know that it is my understanding that NO properties located between Big Redfish Lake and the CR83 access own to the water's edge. There is a platted public beach in front of all of them. To the west of CR83 is another issue entirely as most of those deeds read to the water's edge. I don't know if this matters, I just thought it may help in the highlighted section above.

Brad, can you please refer me to a specific document that reflects the bolded statement above?
Thanks.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

A few people have said that RFV was on a "fast track". I now believe them. They also said that Planning had already approved the project devolpment internally. I also believe them regarding this.

Jason Bryan, county planning, is assigned to this project. He has stated over the phone that he sees nothing wrong with RFV's project.

During the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting, Mr. Bryan also made a comment that he thought that a private access / bathroom lot for 80 condos was a better a use than having condos built on the lot. A neighbor who attended stood up and took exception with that statement.

I believe that Mr. Bryan was totally off base when he made such a subjective judgement call regarding what was a better use for that property.

The neighbor who took exception to his comments stated that all the neighbors he knows would much rather prefer condos built on this lot as opposed to RFV's proposed use.

It's very difficult to understand what motivated Mr. Bryan (and Planning) to make such an opinionated statement. But then again, maybe it's not.

 

[BPickelTDC]

Brad, can you please refer me to a specific document that reflects the bolded statement above?
Thanks.

Sure. See SJoes post of the plat for the Subdivision. It is in Plat Book 2 page 41. All of the lots have a length and width with a beach in front of them. With the beach erosion that has occurred, the platted beach in front of the lots may not exist- I don't know for sure. Additionally, I reviewed the property appraisers online data and checked the Walton County GIS. PLEASE let me know if you see or know of something that makes my statement incorrect. Thanks in advance.

Brad

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Smiling JOe recently asked BMBWalker what BMBW saw as some possible solutions to the ongoing problem of finite beach space and unlimited potential demands for the same space.

Right now, there is an ongoing issue of private vs. public beach. I didn't invent this idea. Private means private. Public means public. I have stated repeatedly that much of Blue Mountain Beach is private.

How can the County distinguish in this situation with RFV, how many non-gulf front condo units (with a proposed small limited private access lot) are too many for the area considering the limited amount of public beach? Right now the total number of units at RFV is 80. What would happen if they had 200 units? How about 1000 units? Where does the county draw the line?

Smiling JOe asked for a solution. Here's mine (at least a partial one). Let the market place decide how many condos and homes can be successfully marketed that do NOT trample on the rights of private property owners. I think that is a simple and straight forward start.

Walton County has disregarded private property rights in the past and are doing so again now by simply not following the golden "INFILL ZONING" rule of compatibility with the neighborhood. If Walton County were to follow their own rules, then RFV probably would have to market their project without private beach access.

Regarding that much discussed idea of disclosure in another thread, it would seem to me that regardless of the outcome of the 260 BMB Road lot, that RFV would have to disclose to their clients that the property on either side of the private access is also private property (i.e. limited area).

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Sure. See SJoes post of the plat for the Subdivision. It is in Plat Book 2 page 41. All of the lots have a length and width with a beach in front of them. With the beach erosion that has occurred, the platted beach in front of the lots may not exist- I don't know for sure. Additionally, I reviewed the property appraisers online data and checked the Walton County GIS. PLEASE let me know if you see or know of something that makes my statement incorrect. Thanks in advance.

Brad

Thanks for the quick reply. I've reviewed that document that you refer to above many times in the past. I see nothing there that determines who owns the "BEACH" as labeled in the document. Am I missing something? As for the property appraiser's office and GIS, I don't believe either carries any legal weight as to the ownership of the beach area. There should be (I would think) a document that exists in the public records of Walton County that would clearly show this; either a warranty deed, quit claim deed or some other document that is "legally" recorded.

It is clear from this document that the individual properties do not own up to the water line, but it is not clear who owns the sandy part of the beach itself.