Seagrove Village Market Cafe Moving

[Matt J]

To be fair the planning department didn't approve this, they have to pass deviations along to the planning board and ultimately the BCC.

Given the recent news regarding the CDLPZ set backs remaining as is pending a lawsuit I'd think that would affect this project much greater? Unless it wasdesigned with the existing setbacks in mind.

 

[John G]

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.

Glad you are on top of this one. I agree, this is of NO BENEFIT to the community.

Unfortunately, its a common theme in SoWal that if you want something done, you need to hire an Attorney.

Keep fighting and keep your foot down.

 

[BeachSteelers]

Planning has approved this per their tech review since July. Yet, they know this variance isn't even grantable? Their Job isn't to stuff this under a rug. It's to work on Our behalf not the developers. They've known this for months probably since Mr. Underwood first fact checked the application. Mr. Dyess will need to explain how this request wasn't denied by his dept. but rather allowed to proceed forward. If I was the developer and wasted months and money building a plan that knowing can't work per their own review I'd be pissed off to the max. I am pissed off to the max they knowingly allowed it to go forward without any legal basis. The Wolf is in charge of the Henhouse. They aren't working on Our behalf and I believe this email proves that point quite clearly.
The CLDPZ is another big problem for them. Not surprising is the Fact the Survey Company won't return a phone message asking how does one do a survey and miss a creek? How does the County also miss showing a creeks location that was part of their own Storm Study in April 2014? Still waiting on that answer too. Incompetence or Ignorance isn't a valid excuse on either of these 2 issues.

 

[James Bentwood]

@BeachSteelers I think you should back off a bit. This is another case of a developer buying a property that isn't quite right because someone at the planning department told him they could work it out. No evil intentions. Not conspiracy, just optimism. The restaurant/market would be a nice addition and a continuing tradition for thousands of families, and provide some good jobs. Unfortunately our town has changed and anyone who moved here in the last 20 years wants it to stay the way it was when they got here. I can't blame them, but compromise makes a community.

 

[Danny Glidewell]

No one wants our county to continue to grow and develop more quality jobs and business opportunities for our citizens than I do. But a critical element of quality growth is having rules that make sense and are followed. People need to be able to rely on the rules being followed by everyone. Beachsteelers has every right to be concerned that his property will be negatively impacted because a neighbor is granted variances to shoehorn a project onto a property that it does not naturally fit. Things always change but they should do so within the rules.

 

[BeachSteelers]

Don't think backing off is in my plan though now it should now be in theirs about another 220' back to be exact. And another 100' North due to a bad CDLPZ geometry map. Stuffing nearly 6000' of restaurant between 2 subdivisions and on a CDL tributary
isn't in the Publics interest and apparently isn't allowed under the Land Codes. Yet, I should back off, really? Slim chance of that happening.
When Planning's Director and Our County Attorney knowingly and purposely allow this possible waiver to still be granted although it is clearly not allowed is what I label as corrupt. They provide the paperwork to request the waivers, review it and send it up the chain as approved Both projects intended for this part of Seagrove has issues that no one but myself is catching yet those paid to catch them aren't doing their jobs in the best interest of the public. The sad truth, if I don't look out for my rights neither will the County's public employees whom are paid to do it.

 

[Matt J]

Okay last time...

If a project meets all LDC requirements it goes through. No need for additional input or approval, but when a variance to existing guidelines is requested (every property owner has the right to request no matter how ludicrous) then the project is going to go before the planning commission followed by the BCC.

 

[Danny Glidewell]

Matt, do you agree though that there is a difference between asking for a 5' variance and a 220' variance? As I stated previous, I am not a big fan of variances; either make the project fit the code or change the code. However, common sense would say a 10% variance or in this case 27' might be reasonable. But do you think an 82% variance as has been requested in this case is reasonable? I have no dog in the hunt either way, I am just in favor of fairly and reasonably enforcing the rules.

 

[James Bentwood]

Don't think backing off is in my plan though now it should now be in theirs about another 220' back to be exact. And another 100' North due to a bad CDLPZ geometry map. Stuffing nearly 6000' of restaurant between 2 subdivisions and on a CDL tributary
isn't in the Publics interest and apparently isn't allowed under the Land Codes. Yet, I should back off, really? Slim chance of that happening.
When Planning's Director and Our County Attorney knowingly and purposely allow this possible waiver to still be granted although it is clearly not allowed is what I label as corrupt. They provide the paperwork to request the waivers, review it and send it up the chain as approved Both projects intended for this part of Seagrove has issues that no one but myself is catching yet those paid to catch them aren't doing their jobs in the best interest of the public. The sad truth, if I don't look out for my rights neither will the County's public employees whom are paid to do it.

I don't have a problem with you making your case. I even appreciate community involvement and guarding against bad development. I'll speak for the community and say we would all appreciate you dropping the militant, aggressive, blameful attitude. You'll do better by being, respectful, polite, even professional. Your attitude is exactly why politicians and bureaucrats are paranoid and afraid to communicate. It's why they prefer to do things behind closed doors.

 

[Matt J]

Matt, do you agree though that there is a difference between asking for a 5' variance and a 220' variance? As I stated previous, I am not a big fan of variances; either make the project fit the code or change the code. However, common sense would say a 10% variance or in this case 27' might be reasonable. But do you think an 82% variance as has been requested in this case is reasonable? I have no dog in the hunt either way, I am just in favor of fairly and reasonably enforcing the rules.

Danny I think the whole thing is a boondoggle and the ramifications aren't even being projected accurately.

That said I'm not saying they should be changed or that it will happen, but if you don't change the code to state no variances or variances within XX then even the most ludicrous requests have to be heard.