The people who bought there did so knowing that there was a 250' buffer. Those 'local folks who care about us and the community' want to shrink that 250' buffer to 20'. Huge difference and I can see why they are opposed.
Seagrove Village Market Cafe Moving
- Thread starter WMW
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
It was continued to Nov. 12 at last night's Planning Commission meeting. Revised plans are being submitted, according to Commissioner Meadows' newsletter.
Here's an email from the Planning project mgr to his Superior Dir. Dyess and County attorney Mark Davis. I find item 3 of particular interest as they state this project isn't eligible for the RPA 250' buffer being downsized to 20'. Not sure of date they all became aware of this, the date listed is when my Sunshine request was fulfilled.
The developer knows not getting this waiver is a near death blow to his plan yet the waiver request is still being pushed forwarded as if no one would find this statue or this email.
Did they make the developer aware of this?
I'm making everyone aware of it.
This is how the system works not for you.
From:
Brian Underwood (undbrian@co.walton.fl.us)Subject:
Seagrove Village market - 15-00100114Date:
2015-09-23 10:15:16To:
Mark Davis <mdd@co.walton.fl.us>; Wayne Dyess <dyewayne@co.walton.fl.us>; Cc:
Wayne Dyess
Mark:
Wayne has asked me to pass along some information concerning the Seagrove Village Market PUD project.
The applicant is seeking three deviations to LDC standards, as described in the following table:
#
WALTON COUNTY LDC SECTION
ITEMS
WALTON COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
PUD AMENDMENT DEVIATIONS (THIS APPLICATION)
JUSTIFICATION
1
2.01.03.L.2.e.i
RESIDENTIAL PRESERVATION AREA (RPA) BUFFER REQUIREMENT
250' BUFFER FROM RPA
20' FROM RPA
This deviation is being requested as Future Land Use designation on this parcel changed after project PUD was originally approved in 2000. Also for consistency with adjacent commercial development.
2
2.01.03.L.2.e.iii - NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REQUIREMENT
BCC CAN APPROVE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
NO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REQUIREMENT
This deviation is being requested given nature of project & as Future Land Use designation on this parcel changed after the project PUD was originally approved in 2000. Also for consistency with adjacent development.
3
2.01.03.L.3.d.i – MIX OF USES
MIX OF USE REQUIREMENT
MIX OF USE REQUIREMENT
NO MIX OF USES REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION
This deviation is being requested given nature of project & as Future Land Use designation on this parcel changed after the project PUD was originally approved in 2000. Also for consistency with adjacent development.
The requested deviation from the 250’ buffer standard for RPA / New Commercial, stated in LDC 2.01.03.L.2.e.(i), may not be allowable, based on the subsequent provisions in LDC Section 2.01.03.L.2.e.(iii) – “These buffer requirements may only be modified by the County Commission, as an express part of an adopted Neighborhood Plan for an area within the NPA district.”
This Seagrove Village Market project site is not in an area with an adopted Neighborhood Plan.
Just wanted to put you in the loop as this project is on the agenda for Planning Commission tomorrow evening.
Thanks, Brian
The developer knows not getting this waiver is a near death blow to his plan yet the waiver request is still being pushed forwarded as if no one would find this statue or this email.
Did they make the developer aware of this?
I'm making everyone aware of it.
This is how the system works not for you.
From:
Brian Underwood (undbrian@co.walton.fl.us)Subject:
Seagrove Village market - 15-00100114Date:
2015-09-23 10:15:16To:
Mark Davis <mdd@co.walton.fl.us>; Wayne Dyess <dyewayne@co.walton.fl.us>; Cc:
Wayne Dyess
Mark:
Wayne has asked me to pass along some information concerning the Seagrove Village Market PUD project.
The applicant is seeking three deviations to LDC standards, as described in the following table:
#
WALTON COUNTY LDC SECTION
ITEMS
WALTON COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
PUD AMENDMENT DEVIATIONS (THIS APPLICATION)
JUSTIFICATION
1
2.01.03.L.2.e.i
RESIDENTIAL PRESERVATION AREA (RPA) BUFFER REQUIREMENT
250' BUFFER FROM RPA
20' FROM RPA
This deviation is being requested as Future Land Use designation on this parcel changed after project PUD was originally approved in 2000. Also for consistency with adjacent commercial development.
2
2.01.03.L.2.e.iii - NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REQUIREMENT
BCC CAN APPROVE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
NO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REQUIREMENT
This deviation is being requested given nature of project & as Future Land Use designation on this parcel changed after the project PUD was originally approved in 2000. Also for consistency with adjacent development.
3
2.01.03.L.3.d.i – MIX OF USES
MIX OF USE REQUIREMENT
MIX OF USE REQUIREMENT
NO MIX OF USES REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION
This deviation is being requested given nature of project & as Future Land Use designation on this parcel changed after the project PUD was originally approved in 2000. Also for consistency with adjacent development.
The requested deviation from the 250’ buffer standard for RPA / New Commercial, stated in LDC 2.01.03.L.2.e.(i), may not be allowable, based on the subsequent provisions in LDC Section 2.01.03.L.2.e.(iii) – “These buffer requirements may only be modified by the County Commission, as an express part of an adopted Neighborhood Plan for an area within the NPA district.”
This Seagrove Village Market project site is not in an area with an adopted Neighborhood Plan.
Just wanted to put you in the loop as this project is on the agenda for Planning Commission tomorrow evening.
Thanks, Brian
This isn't for the good of the community it is for the good of the Hartley's and their pocketbook. They only worked with the community when we retained a Lawyer. Their CDLPZ impact number of 12.68% is a load of crap and will need to revised since they fail to account for all the tributaries impacted. They purposely gave the community as little notice as possible and tried to sneak this in as quickly as possible. There are plenty of spots in Seagrove that the Land Codes are favorable to his project, This spot unfortunately for him isn't one of them. Waiving 230' of a 250' RPA/NPA buffer is good for the community how? We forced Mr. Hartley to listen to our concerns and that fact alone sent his plan back to the drawing board. Which they continue to ignore our requests to review it in a timely manner. The minimum 10 day window is all we will be given again. And I, as the neighbor most impacted by this proposal, have the intention of protecting my rights as a homeowner and that does not include accepting a daily 5am dumpster pickup 50' from my bedroom, a storm water pool sited almost in a tributary of Western lake they fail to account for in their plan, destruction of deeded Conservation Easement land that has given them maybe the most favorable tax bill for a property valued at nearly a $1 Million dollars.
I fail to see how that blatant ignoring of Land Code statues by our planning dept and this developer is in the interest of Our Community. We really need more Sysco Food services in SoWal this badly? We need to save some more low paying service jobs at the expense of homeowners? So they can sell this in 2 years for a handsome profit?
We tried working with Them on this and when I'm told I being given 30' for my loss of 220' of buffer then I call BS and put my foot down. Or maybe the neighbors might like to sleep in a day or two a week so we may not pickup the trash daily? Or he knew going into it that the RPA Buffer was in place and yet still tried to find a way around it?
I didn't write the Land Codes but want them enforced not trampled in order to satisfy their needs since this plan satisfies none of my needs or the needs of the community. Either go through the legal process of changing the codes or change your plan to fit the codes instead of dropping a few thousand in mitigating fees. Crap like this is why Seagrove is being overdeveloped, by knowing ignoring codes. Correct ignoring codes is not News in this County and that's in no way in the interest of the Community.
I fail to see how that blatant ignoring of Land Code statues by our planning dept and this developer is in the interest of Our Community. We really need more Sysco Food services in SoWal this badly? We need to save some more low paying service jobs at the expense of homeowners? So they can sell this in 2 years for a handsome profit?
We tried working with Them on this and when I'm told I being given 30' for my loss of 220' of buffer then I call BS and put my foot down. Or maybe the neighbors might like to sleep in a day or two a week so we may not pickup the trash daily? Or he knew going into it that the RPA Buffer was in place and yet still tried to find a way around it?
I didn't write the Land Codes but want them enforced not trampled in order to satisfy their needs since this plan satisfies none of my needs or the needs of the community. Either go through the legal process of changing the codes or change your plan to fit the codes instead of dropping a few thousand in mitigating fees. Crap like this is why Seagrove is being overdeveloped, by knowing ignoring codes. Correct ignoring codes is not News in this County and that's in no way in the interest of the Community.
I am not a big fan of waiving the LDC codes or the Comp plan in any instance. If the codes or plan are obsolete or there is an error, then it should be fixed. If not, then the code should be followed. The property owners involved on both sides then have certainty going forward. But waiving over 90% of a buffer area between properties is just unreasonable on its face. The surrounding property owners bought and developed their property based on this code and they deserve to have the rules remain consistent. I fully believe in the right of every property owner to develop their property as they choose but common courtesy demands that you also respect the rights of your neighbors. I further think the county should at least have a plan to upgrade the infrastructure before they allow more traffic to be dumped into an obsolete roadway.