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

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,305
386
Here's a brief summary of events to date for those "just joining in":

1. 10/18/2004: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #1, east of the 83 access, for $2,600,000.

2. 2/14/2005: Almost 4 months later, they purchased the main property on 30A, for $21,587,500.

3. 8/31/2006: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #2, west of the 83 beach access, for $5,045,000.

RFV ran into stiff opposition from the neighbors, including BMBCA, regarding building bathrooms and walkover on bathroom lot #1. In an effort to appease the neighbors, RFV then proposed to only build bathrooms on the lot. The county still would not grant them a permit.

There are 4 public access in close proximity to bathroom lot #1 including the 83 public access. The 83 public access is scheduled to have bathrooms built in about a year, according to TDC. Access (or no lack of) to the beach is therefore not an issue for RFV.

At the public community meeting this past November, RFV (Brad Zeitlen) denied that they were turned down for approval on bathroom lot #1. When asked why RFV decided to spend over 5 million dollars for bathroom lot #2 if they were supposedly not turned down for lot #1, their attorney said, "Zoning."

RFV initially tried to slide the project through as a minor development order. This type of classification would then NOT involve the public or the county commissioners....only the planning commission.

But bathroom lot #2 is zoned "infill". The Walton County land use code clearly states that

1. any development on an infill zoned property, must be handled as a major development order which requires public notification and input as well as a vote from the County Commissioners (scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 23rd in Defuniak Springs).

2. that any development be COMPATIBLE with the existing neighborhood.

RFV pulled the (minor development order) agenda from a previous county commissioners' meeting because they knew they would be forced to follow the rules regarding infill zoning (public process). So now they are addressing item 1 above.

Item 2 is the one that is the main issue AND that has been completely ignored by the Walton County Planning Commission based on their approval, against their own rules. Allowing access for over 300 people (80 remotely located condos that are part of a commercial development) on a single residential lot is simply not compatible.

To me (and many others including the attorney for the neghborhood), it's very clear that per item 2, the County Commissioners should not approve this project because there is no compatibility, plain and simple. This is the core issue. Everything else is what it is ;-) .
 

Kevin Thompson

Beach Lover
Dec 23, 2006
82
0
Once again Vagrant defines the "core issue". For those people that Vagrant is educating, let it be known that many people disagree with Vagrant who LIVE in Blue Mountain and that he is not speaking for all of us. He does not live in Blue Mountain, doesn't even live in South Walton County but is the expert on everything related to this issue. We applaud the developer for moving to a lot with better "zoning" than the first lot. I am sure he will now write another entire page to respond.
 

Rita

margarita brocolia
Dec 1, 2004
5,209
1,634
Dune Allen Beach
Here's a brief summary of events to date for those "just joining in":

1. 10/18/2004: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #1, east of the 83 access, for $2,600,000.

2. 2/14/2005: Almost 4 months later, they purchased the main property on 30A, for $21,587,500.

3. 8/31/2006: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #2, west of the 83 beach access, for $5,045,000.

RFV ran into stiff opposition from the neighbors, including BMBCA, regarding building bathrooms and walkover on bathroom lot #1. In an effort to appease the neighbors, RFV then proposed to only build bathrooms on the lot. The county still would not grant them a permit.

There are 4 public access in close proximity to bathroom lot #1 including the 83 public access. The 83 public access is scheduled to have bathrooms built in about a year, according to TDC. Access (or no lack of) to the beach is therefore not an issue for RFV.

At the public community meeting this past November, RFV (Brad Zeitlen) denied that they were turned down for approval on bathroom lot #1. When asked why RFV decided to spend over 5 million dollars for bathroom lot #2 if they were supposedly not turned down for lot #1, their attorney said, "Zoning."

RFV initially tried to slide the project through as a minor development order. This type of classification would then NOT involve the public or the county commissioners....only the planning commission.

But bathroom lot #2 is zoned "infill". The Walton County land use code clearly states that

1. any development on an infill zoned property, must be handled as a major development order which requires public notification and input as well as a vote from the County Commissioners (scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 23rd in Defuniak Springs).

2. that any development be COMPATIBLE with the existing neighborhood.

RFV pulled the (minor development order) agenda from a previous county commissioners' meeting because they knew they would be forced to follow the rules regarding infill zoning (public process). So now they are addressing item 1 above.

Item 2 is the one that is the main issue AND that has been completely ignored by the Walton County Planning Commission based on their approval, against their own rules. Allowing access for over 300 people (80 remotely located condos that are part of a commercial development) on a single residential lot is simply not compatible.

To me (and many others including the attorney for the neghborhood), it's very clear that per item 2, the County Commissioners should not approve this project because there is no compatibility, plain and simple. This is the core issue. Everything else is what it is ;-) .

BMBV -- Thanks for attempting to help clarify some things.
 

Advance The Man

Beach Lover
May 19, 2005
54
0
For the record I don't live in BMB, but appears Vagrant does. Sounds like the 'many people' is you. Not sure why you are so concerned on Vagrant's reasoning on being against this. If it is denied, it's not going back to your side of the street b/c it appears to be a fact, lot 1 was denied. What's strange is you're not fighting alongside Vagrant to get it pushed out of the entire area. Strange...:dunno:

Once again Vagrant defines the "core issue". For those people that Vagrant is educating, let it be known that many people disagree with Vagrant who LIVE in Blue Mountain and that he is not speaking for all of us. He does not live in Blue Mountain, doesn't even live in South Walton County but is the expert on everything related to this issue. We applaud the developer for moving to a lot with better "zoning" than the first lot. I am sure he will now write another entire page to respond.
 

Kevin Thompson

Beach Lover
Dec 23, 2006
82
0
For the record I don't live in BMB, but appears Vagrant does. Sounds like the 'many people' is you. Not sure why you are so concerned on Vagrant's reasoning on being against this. If it is denied, it's not going back to your side of the street b/c it appears to be a fact, lot 1 was denied. What's strange is you're not fighting alongside Vagrant to get it pushed out of the entire area. Strange...:dunno:

Vagrant has already said he doesn not live in Blue Mountain he doesn't even live in the County. Please have your facts straight before you post. There are enough people posting incorrect information as if it is fact. The reason I am am not fighting it because I am for it. If it does not happen then you will have all the people walking, biking and driving down the street in front of my house. I like this idea I have said it before.

What was strange is that when it was going to be on Lot 1 nobody on the west side including Vagrant ever said a word only the people on the east side. And you really need to check your facts on Lot 1 before you believe Vagrant or Edroe because I said it before there was never a denial for what they were going to do on Lot 1. I won't fight this battle again with Edroe and Vagrant but I will at least tell you that they are wrong.
 

Advance The Man

Beach Lover
May 19, 2005
54
0
Doesn't vagrant own property in BMB? If so, I think he has every right to have an opinion. On the lot 1 being denied, it is a fact.

Vagrant has already said he doesn not live in Blue Mountain he doesn't even live in the County. Please have your facts straight before you post. There are enough people posting incorrect information as if it is fact. The reason I am am not fighting it because I am for it. If it does not happen then you will have all the people walking, biking and driving down the street in front of my house. I like this idea I have said it before.

What was strange is that when it was going to be on Lot 1 nobody on the west side including Vagrant ever said a word only the people on the east side. And you really need to check your facts on Lot 1 before you believe Vagrant or Edroe because I said it before there was never a denial for what they were going to do on Lot 1. I won't fight this battle again with Edroe and Vagrant but I will at least tell you that they are wrong.
 

Santiago

Beach Fanatic
May 29, 2005
635
91
seagrove beach
I don't live in BMB or own property there but I know the developers personally and consider them friends. So for that reason, I hope their request is approved. Surely friendship is as important a reason as not wanting someone walking by your property is for opposing it.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter