Which Beaches are private and which are public?

[Richard]

In an attempt to clear up the discussion about the Blue Mountain Beach neighborhood plans I would like to note there are two plans, BMB-1 and BMB-2. The BMB-1 plan mentioned above is a plan being proposed by beachfront property owners that would include just beachfront properties. However, not all beachfront property owners decided to take part in the process. This plan would limit the use of the beach to owners and guests within the platted subdivision. And there is at least one beachfront owner in that area who has asked people sitting on the beach behind his house to move!

The BMB-2 plan is being put forth as a plan for the entire Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision #1. That plan basically mirrors county rules and regulations and says nothing about the beach. It in no way restricts use of the beach. Some individuals involved with the BMB-1 plan have asked to be excluded from the BMB-2 plan but that has not happened, as they are part of the subdivision.

Neither of these plans has been before the Planning Commission so they certainly are not yet about to go before the BCC. If they are on a BCC agenda it is likely because there was an assumption they would have been before the Planning Commission by now. But twice the BMB-1 plan has been scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission but both times the plan has been withdrawn. Presently it is scheduled to be heard by them on April 9th. The BMB-2, which has no impact on the beach, is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on March 12th.

 

[scooterbug44]

I can certainly understand wanting to find ways to keep a development further inland from using your neighborhood as the designated access point to funnel all of their guests onto the beach.

I CAN'T understand pitching a fit about someone using the beach near your home when it doesn't preclude your use. I saw one of those "private" signs while walking along their deserted beach - and wished I'd had more liquids before my walk. ;-)

 

[Andy A]

The BMB-2 plan is less restrictive in nature than the one proposed by the beach front owners, IMO. It is also in the the interest of good neighborhood planning and proper land usage. I do not understand how a partial neighborhood plan can be considered for a platted subdivision but I am told that this is the case. If so, it is certainly not in the interest of good neighborhood planning and development as two plans could be at odds with one another in both goals and functionality. This would appear to be the case in these two plans.

 

[Richard]

Right on Andy A.

 

[NotDeadYet]

ESTABLISHING THAT THE INTENT OF THE PLAN IS TO PRESERVE THE BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACHES FOR USE BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH SUBDIVISION NO. 1, ESTABLISHING THAT THE USE IS A PERMISSIVE ONE AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE ABUSED; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR VESTED TITLE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS REGULATING NEIGHBORHOOD BEACH ACCESSES;

I think it is worth posting this section again. I'm no lawyer but it looks like to me like this would codify a precedent into the land development code about beach use being permissive rather than customary. If the BCC were to approve something like this, it would be one more hurdle to get over to establish customary use on the county's beaches, something the TDC has asked the BCC to look into. Owners in other parts of SoWal who think they have "vested property rights" to the beach would then assert their right to grant or deny "permission."
And never mind the larger issue. If I were a second or third tier owner in the subdivision, I would be very worried that my use might be deemed "abusive" one of these days and I would lose my "permission."
And aren't those neighborhood accesses county owned? Is the county going to give over control of them to these beachfront owners??
I sure hope this one goes down.

 

[Smiling JOe]

What I find most interesting about this is that the original Plat for Blue Mtn Beach S/D No. 1, PB2, P41, describes the boundaries of the property, which do not include the beach. The southern boundary is described in the Plat as, "...thence in a northwesterly direction along the bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico."

 

[scooterbug44]

What I find most interesting about this is that the original Plat for Blue Mtn Beach S/D No. 1, PB2, P41, describes the boundaries of the property, which do not include the beach. The southern boundary is described in the Plat as, "...thence in a northwesterly direction along the bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico."

I love it! Put that in your pipe and smoke it you silly private beach folks! :rofl:

 

[BeachSiO2]

What I find most interesting about this is that the original Plat for Blue Mtn Beach S/D No. 1, PB2, P41, describes the boundaries of the property, which do not include the beach. The southern boundary is described in the Plat as, "...thence in a northwesterly direction along the bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico."

I love it! Put that in your pipe and smoke it you silly private beach folks! :rofl:

In lieu of BMBV's attendance to this discussion, I would recommend you searching the OR on the Clerks site for the first property east of the Blue Mountain Beach Regional Access. I am referring to a summary judgment issued in 2007 and deed recorded on September 12, 2007. The original property lines you described above have been modified to now got to the waters edge. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Oh, I've seen that paper trail, but if the original plat of the sub-division never included the beach, how the hell could it suddenly be included later in time?

 

[NotDeadYet]

Good question, SJ. There is a similar situation in Seagrove, west of 395. The original Cube McGee plat didn't include the beach there either - lots went to the bluff. There are four contiguous lots there that now go to the MHW.
I'll be surprised if we don't see more of this.