Redfish Village Beach Access

....get your ass up there and fight this thing. good luck.

Thanks

Who is BMBW248?

.....and now, you're all but admitting defeat. i'm confused.....

JR, Let me try to clear one thing up here. I'm responding to the part where you say "...and now, you're all but admitting defeat. i'm confused" because I think your statement is inappropriate.

When Jason Bryan of Walton County Planning says, on more than one occasion (and recently as well), that the technical review committee of the planning department (that's TRC for SJ) says that it looks like the project will pass planning, well.....I'll take him on his word. You know very well, however, that the commissioners must vote on this next.

Even your buddy, SJ, said, "I don't expect the Planning Dpt to reject this project. I have rarely seen them reject any project. They shove it up to the County Commissioners (BCC) and let them be the bearer of bad news if there is any to be delivered. The Planning Dpt doesn't like to be yelled at by irate developers or builders."

When I acknowledged this idea, I surely wouldn't call that "admitting defeat" as you say.

Remember that the local press is starting to disclose what is going on as per my post [ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=191882&postcount=329"]#329[/ame].

It ain't over 'till it's over.

BTW, JR, I appreciate your pointing this out so that I could clarify it.

Inapropriate to be confused? I offered that I was confused(apparently on more than one subject;-) ) If you are not defeated, then good for you. I read you response to SJ incorrectly. Still, if I was in your shoes, I'd have everyone I know in that room tonight making so much noise, that the BCC could hear it in their respective homes. Again, good luck.

SJ and JR, can I assume that we are on the same page with this issue? I know we've had our "Hurricane Dennis induced" differences in the past and I hope we can more or less put those behind us. Gotta run.

JR, Let me try to clear one thing up here. I'm responding to the part where you say "...and now, you're all but admitting defeat. i'm confused" because I think your statement is inappropriate.

When Jason Bryan of Walton County Planning says, on more than one occasion (and recently as well), that the technical review committee of the planning department (that's TRC for SJ) says that it looks like the project will pass planning, well.....I'll take him on his word. You know very well, however, that the commissioners must vote on this next.

Even your buddy, SJ, said, "I don't expect the Planning Dpt to reject this project. I have rarely seen them reject any project. They shove it up to the County Commissioners (BCC) and let them be the bearer of bad news if there is any to be delivered. The Planning Dpt doesn't like to be yelled at by irate developers or builders."

When I acknowledged this idea, I surely wouldn't call that "admitting defeat" as you say.
...

I don't expect the Planning Dpt to reject this project. I have rarely seen them reject any project. They shove it up to the County Commissioners (BCC) and let them be the bearer of bad news if there is any to be delivered. The Planning Dpt doesn't like to be yelled at by irate developers or builders. I forsee a bit of audience reaction tomorrow, but my guess is that it is already a done deal for them. They really don't care about input from the public -- they only listen a little bit because they are required to hear public comments. The only way this project could meet any resistance is if the crowd was lined up to the doors of the court house annex and all were objecting. That is the only way the BCC will listen too.

You have accused me of picking through another person's listing for his property and selecting things in particular. Now I return the favor. You conveniently left off the important last two sentences of my paragraph. A super-sized turnout with many people willing to speak on this issue, has a chance to turn this around, in my opinion. So as John R says, go get everyone you can find and take them with you tonight to help make some noise. With this item being only the second on the agenda, and the NatureWalk Private Club being number 6, you guys could make it very painful for the Planning Committee. ;-) I doubt that I will be able to attend, but you can tell the Committee that I do not see the compatibility with this intended use.

..... I doubt that I will be able to attend, but you can tell the Committee that I do not see the compatibility with this intended use.

I don't think people will be "lined up to the doors of the court house annex and all were objecting". However, I understand what you're saying, believe me.

Sincerely, I would prefer you (and any of the others reading this) to tell the Walton County Planning Committee today, yourself, at least via email, even if it's a one statement email disagreeing with their assessment of "compatibility"...

Jason Bryan - assigned to the project
bryjason@co.walton.fl.us

Lois LeSeur - Planning Manager
laslois@co.walton.fl.us

Pat Blackshear - Director of Planning
blapat@co.walton.fl.us

Thanks.

Inapropriate to be confused? I offered that I was confused(apparently on more than one subject;-) ) If you are not defeated, then good for you. I read you response to SJ incorrectly. Still, if I was in your shoes, I'd have everyone I know in that room tonight making so much noise, that the BCC could hear it in their respective homes. Again, good luck.

BMBV: Report please...?
_______________________________

BMBV: Report please...?
_______________________________

The chain effect is under way. Jason Bryan, County Planner in charge of this project, recommended approval of the project. Planning Commissioner, Tom Patton said that he adds the most weight to the recommendation of our fine Planning Staff. A few people spoke against the proposal, two of whom are attorneys representing clients in the area. I thought that one of our SoWallers was most elequent of all. The last gentleman who spoke against the project wasn't even there for this particular topic, but he spoke against what he thought was obviously wrong. Other people said it in general terms of non-compatibility, but he was more specific in saying the Redfish Village was most like a commercial property with potential rentors coming in every week. When they use this access, it then becomes a commercial extension of the higher density property, however, it is not commercially zoned. He went on to say that once Redfish Village uses this access for financial gain of the commercial property, this private access is considered by County Code to be Commercial property, which it is not zoned for. It is zoned as NPA-Infill -- (Neighborhood Planning Area) which doesn't allow for any commercial uses.

It was obvious that Jason Bryan's speech was well rehearsed, but he was nervous as heck trying to say that it was compatible with code. I wouldn't doubt that someone else helped him write that speech.

The Planning Comm. kindly listened to the public, but they were all suddenly & shockingly silent when the last gentleman spoke (because he caught them with their pants down). He just explained their own code to the Planning Comm. However, they had already made up their mind, and didn't hear anything that was enough to make them change their mind.

It's a small town.

Next step will be for this to go to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to seek their approval. They are the next link in the chain. Unless people come out in droves, you should expect the BCC to either table the item, or say that they rely heavily on the Planning Comm, and since they recommended approval, they will likely approve it without raising an eyebrow. Comm. Meadows or Comm. Jones will likely insist that the developer improve the sidewalks to the public access from Redfish Village.


Brad Pickel -- question: The developer of Redfish Village says that they are donating $50,000 to the TDC to go toward building a bathroom at the 83 access, but that the TDC does not have to use those funds to build the bathroom or even use the funds for the 83 public access. What is up with that? Can you speak on where and how these donated funds will be used? It seems to me that since the impact will be on that area, the funds should be used on improving that area. I would love to see restrooms at some of these major public beach access points.

Thank you for the excellent summary SJ - did you see BMBV there too?
__________________________________

BMBV: Report please...?

From the Profit, Smiling JOe:
"I don't expect the Planning Dpt to reject this project. I have rarely seen them reject any project. They shove it up to the County Commissioners (BCC) and let them be the bearer of bad news if there is any to be delivered. The Planning Dpt doesn't like to be yelled at by irate developers or builders."

There's no question that the planning commission had already and completely made up their minds before ever setting foot in the meeting. They were not interested in what anyone had to say.

They even challenged the neighborhood's attorney when he stated that what they were doing was not permitted under Florida State law.

During the neighbors' lawyer's talk, one commissioner was eating, another went out of the room to get a drink. It's nice to see the planning commission give the process such due respect.

The developers "sweetened the pot" even more (recall they have aleady donated $50,000 to the county for 83 access improvements). RFV will deed over the beach part of the lot to the county.

That's nice, except the public has no way to legally get to that part of the beach (except walking south of the mean high water line) because the RFV lot will continue to be a "Private gateway...". This is just more smoke to induce the county to ignore zoning requirements; namely the compatibility issue with our residential neighborhood.

Time and time again I've heard people say that the developers run the county, not the citizens. I've pretty much ignored them until now.

Everyone I know loves our area for many reasons. One of the biggest reasons is the building density restriction (and building height). And there is basically one main draw to the area: the beach. The developers have now discovered how to get around the density restriction, develop remotely and still market their development as a "beach front experience" complete with trolleys and all. This will induce more pressure on the beach than otherwise would naturally happen through normal growth.

When I seriously considered retiring to the beach, I had no idea it would be in Disneyworld, trolleys and all.

It is now up to the 5 county commissioners.

The chain effect is under way. Jason Bryan, County Planner in charge of this project, recommended approval of the project. Planning Commissioner, Tom Patton said that he adds the most weight to the recommendation of our fine Planning Staff. A few people spoke against the proposal, two of whom are attorneys representing clients in the area. I thought that one of our SoWallers was most elequent of all. The last gentleman who spoke against the project wasn't even there for this particular topic, but he spoke against what he thought was obviously wrong. Other people said it in general terms of non-compatibility, but he was more specific in saying the Redfish Village was most like a commercial property with potential rentors coming in every week. When they use this access, it then becomes a commercial extension of the higher density property, however, it is not commercially zoned. He went on to say that once Redfish Village uses this access for financial gain of the commercial property, this private access is considered by County Code to be Commercial property, which it is not zoned for. It is zoned as NPA-Infill -- (Neighborhood Planning Area) which doesn't allow for any commercial uses.

It was obvious that Jason Bryan's speech was well rehearsed, but he was nervous as heck trying to say that it was compatible with code. I wouldn't doubt that someone else helped him write that speech.

The Planning Comm. kindly listened to the public, but they were all suddenly & shockingly silent when the last gentleman spoke (because he caught them with their pants down). He just explained their own code to the Planning Comm. However, they had already made up their mind, and didn't hear anything that was enough to make them change their mind.

It's a small town.

Next step will be for this to go to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to seek their approval. They are the next link in the chain. Unless people come out in droves, you should expect the BCC to either table the item, or say that they rely heavily on the Planning Comm, and since they recommended approval, they will likely approve it without raising an eyebrow. Comm. Meadows or Comm. Jones will likely insist that the developer improve the sidewalks to the public access from Redfish Village.


Brad Pickel -- question: The developer of Redfish Village says that they are donating $50,000 to the TDC to go toward building a bathroom at the 83 access, but that the TDC does not have to use those funds to build the bathroom or even use the funds for the 83 public access. What is up with that? Can you speak on where and how these donated funds will be used? It seems to me that since the impact will be on that area, the funds should be used on improving that area. I would love to see restrooms at some of these major public beach access points.

SJ:

I couldn't agree with you more. The money is scheduled to be used to supplement existing funds that will pay for construction of the restroom facilities, parking, stormwater, etc. at the CR 83 (Blue Mountain Beach Regional Access). It will not be used for anything else as we all know that access needs to have a restroom and associated parking upgrades. It is scheduled for late 2007/early 2008 before the summer of 2008.

I thought that one of our SoWallers was most elequent of all. The last gentleman who spoke against the project wasn't even there for this particular topic, but he spoke against what he thought was obviously wrong. Other people said it in general terms of non-compatibility, but he was more specific in saying the Redfish Village was most like a commercial property with potential rentors coming in every week. When they use this access, it then becomes a commercial extension of the higher density property, however, it is not commercially zoned. He went on to say that once Redfish Village uses this access for financial gain of the commercial property, this private access is considered by County Code to be Commercial property, which it is not zoned for. It is zoned as NPA-Infill -- (Neighborhood Planning Area) which doesn't allow for any commercial uses..

Thanks SJ for the update. If you recall I asked the parking question for this property in one of my earlier post. Seems like they would have to provide parking for this development at the PrivateBA based on the commercial usage of this property(I think they would have to provide parking regardless). If they do indeed play the commercial card than the PrivateBA will Private Parking(I know you have a picture of a beach with cars jammed up on it). Is the lot big enough for 60-70 cars conservative numbers but that is what it will most likely be.

Another thing if they are going to deed the beach to the county then how can they call it PrivateBA? I know that is not a question I should expect you to answer it is just a thought. Can the run a rental business on the beach if the property is deeded to the county?

Thanks SJ for you post. I was unable to attend because of work related issues. I was going to attend when it was originally scheduled for February but again somehow they got it moved up to January. I am beginning to wonder what promises RFV has made to the county that they will not be able to keep.

I guess we are going to have to load up the bus and write the letters to the county commissioners. Did the news media cover this story last night? Wondering what they can do to help out with "The Process".

From the Profit, Smiling JOe:
"I don't expect the Planning Dpt to reject this project. I have rarely seen them reject any project. They shove it up to the County Commissioners (BCC) and let them be the bearer of bad news if there is any to be delivered. The Planning Dpt doesn't like to be yelled at by irate developers or builders."

There's no question that the planning commission had already and completely made up their minds before ever setting foot in the meeting. They were not interested in what anyone had to say.

They even challenged the neighborhood's attorney when he stated that what they were doing was not permitted under Florida State law.

During the neighbors' lawyer's talk, one commissioner was eating, another went out of the room to get a drink. It's nice to see the planning commission give the process such due respect.

The developers "sweetened the pot" even more (recall they have aleady donated $50,000 to the county for 83 access improvements). RFV will deed over the beach part of the lot to the county.

That's nice, except the public has no way to legally get to that part of the beach (except walking south of the mean high water line) because the RFV lot will continue to be a "Private gateway...". This is just more smoke to induce the county to ignore zoning requirements; namely the compatibility issue with our residential neighborhood.

Time and time again I've heard people say that the developers run the county, not the citizens. I've pretty much ignored them until now.

Everyone I know loves our area for many reasons. One of the biggest reasons is the building density restriction (and building height). And there is basically one main draw to the area: the beach. The developers have now discovered how to get around the density restriction, develop remotely and still market their development as a "beach front experience" complete with trolleys and all. This will induce more pressure on the beach than otherwise would naturally happen through normal growth.

When I seriously considered retiring to the beach, I had no idea it would be in Disneyworld, trolleys and all.

It is now up to the 5 county commissioners.

As an oceanfront alpha-male, you, among all people, know it's all about money. Even the rule of law is tainted by money. You'll never know if envelopes went under the door late at night. Best thing to do is enjoy the beach as it is today, because it's only going to become more crowded.

One answer to my question should clear this up in my mind. For whom are these white sands made for? The mass or the few?

One answer to my question should clear this up in my mind. For whom are these white sands made for? The mass or the few?

Sounds to me like it belongs to RFV and new development. Or who ever is generating revenue for the county.

Sounds to me like it belongs to RFV and new development. Or who ever is generating revenue for the county.

Revenue to the county, that would be me because of the property tax and renters for the bed tax?

...
Another thing if they are going to deed the beach to the county then how can they call it PrivateBA? I know that is not a question I should expect you to answer it is just a thought. Can the run a rental business on the beach if the property is deeded to the county?...

Oh, I may have forgot to mention Redfish Village donating part of the lot. Actually, the attorney said that they would donate whatever the County wanted them to do so, in order to make them happy, as long as they could have a private walkover. Yeah, I bet. ;-)

To answer your question above, they can still call it a private beach access, if approved. It would be a PRIVATE beach access, rather than a PRIVATE BEACH access.

By the way, from what I can tell, it appears that the beach between 260 Blue Mtn Rd and the 83 Public Access is not owned by the homeowners, and that it is public, so one would not need navigate south of the mean high water mark to access the newly proposed dedicated public beach.

In retaliation, I suggest all the male residents of the homes surrounding the new private entrance/toilets turn out in their Speedos to greet each busload of beachgoers.

Hi SJ,

It appears to me that Lupine Subdivision (actually just the 2 gulf front homes) does own to the MHW (mean high water line) so one would have to walk south of the MHW line to "legally" access the 260 lot from the 83 beach access.

What's your source of info that shows otherwise?

This is from their declaration filing:



One other thing - a personal thanks for attending and posting on the meeting.

As an oceanfront alpha-male, you, among all people, know it's all about money. Even the rule of law is tainted by money. You'll never know if envelopes went under the door late at night. Best thing to do is enjoy the beach as it is today, because it's only going to become more crowded.

I'm not sure what you mean by "alpha male" and "you, among all people" but I think I understand the rest.

I will try to enjoy the beach as it is today but I certainly won't just roll over and just let happen what is proposed by RFV and perhaps many more developments; neither should any one of you.

I've been sensing a void in the support of the fight against RFV.

Where is Blue Mountain Beach Community Association in all of this? Someone pointed this out to me. BMBCA is the same organization that was so concerned with clear cutting west of Sally's convenience store. BMBCA was so concerned about things happening as far away as Gulf Trace.

BMBCA was also very vocal in opposing RFV when they were trying to convert bathroom lot #1 (about 6 lots east of the 83 access). But BMBCA, from what I've seen, has been very noticeably absent with the continued fight against improper development of bathroom lot #2.

Kevin Thompson, clearly proclamed his "selfish" stand because, as he said repeatedly, he owns property east of the 83 access. Is Kevin Thompson a member of BMBCA with some influence? Can anyone share with me why BMBCA does not see a continued need to openly oppose this?

Oh yea, don't forget that a few directors and several members of BMBCA live east of the 83 beach access.

I'm not sure what's worse: a developer trying to make a buck at the neighborhood's expense or a neighborhood "watch" organization turning a blind eye. If you're a member of BMBCA, you should ask your board why they do not appear to be currently opposing this like they did the first time.

If someone can show me I'm wrong, PLEASE do.

Hi SJ,

It appears to me that Lupine Subdivision (actually just the 2 gulf front homes) does own to the MHW (mean high water line) so one would have to walk south of the MHW line to "legally" access the 260 lot from the 83 beach access.

What's your source of info that shows otherwise?

This is from their declaration filing:



One other thing - a personal thanks for attending and posting on the meeting.

My source is the Property Appraiser's map. Also, the attorney for Redfish Village said it too at Thursday night's meeting. After you bring up the possible error, I quickly looked at more reliable sources. Looking at the Legal Description for the subdivision, it clearly reads that the private property follows the water's edge of the Gulf of Mexico. It would be really nice if the Property Appraiser's data was more accurate more often.

Now, their idea of giving the beach to the County does seem a bit crazy. I am not sure how/if beach services would work there. I just hope those owners and users don't try to leave more crap on the beach. -- There is only so much I can haul to the nearby TDC trashcans.

Vagrant you really like the fact that I admitted being selfish. I also said I like the idea and I don't seem to be the only sane person who does. Everything I see written here is different than what the County is saying and what a lot of our neighbors are now saying. You seem to be at least talking about some real issues instead of a couple people here who are just off their rocker. Now it is your turn to answer some questions. Are you saying the whole County has been paid off? Are you saying the BMBCA has been paid off? Are you saying all the "influential neighbors including as you write Anita Page and Richard Fowlkes" have been paid off? Are you really saying that all these people, the County, the neighbors east and the BMBCA are all unethical and not fighting the good fight with you? You are starting to sound very self-righteous. Also, where is your home, is it a house is it a condo? Are you east or west of 83 and are you a member of BMBCA?

This is the WalCo Prop Appraiser's map showing 286 Blue Mtn Rd surrounded in the red lines. You can see that they didn't draw the property line to the water's edge which contradicts what is written in the legal description. My best guess is that the Property Appraiser's map is incorrect. Also, my best guess is that the owners of this property are not being fully taxed because they are being taxed on only .24 acres of area, which I doubt includes the beach, based on the size of the adjacent property to the west (260 Blue Mtn Rd), which is listed as .76 acres in the property records. ;-)

Vagrant you really like the fact that I admitted being selfish.

Not really...but that is what you have openly claimed to be. You and your position does not make right what is happening. You continually try to defend RFV with your "selfish" proclamations which really doesn't help RFV, by the way, in my opinion.

I also said I like the idea and I don't seem to be the only sane person who does. Everything I see written here is different than what the County is saying and what a lot of our neighbors are now saying.

I don't see any posts supporting the general idea of a private beach access for RFV. If there was, why in the world would you object to it on your side of the tracks (bathroom lot #1)? Oh yea, the reason: you're "selfish", I almost forgot.

You seem to be at least talking about some real issues instead of a couple people here who are just off their rocker.

Thanks, I think.

Now it is your turn to answer some questions. Are you saying the whole County has been paid off?

They did accept a $50,000 contribution for RFV. However I didn't say the county (or anyone else) were paid off, Bob did yesterday. I said I understand what he was saying.

Are you saying the BMBCA has been paid off? Are you saying all the "influential neighbors including as you write Anita Page and Richard Fowlkes" have been paid off?

I think I was clear in pointing out their absence in the latest battle affecting OUR neighborhood. You and Bob bring up the idea of being paid off, not me.

Are you really saying that all these people, the County, the neighbors east and the BMBCA are all unethical and not fighting the good fight with you? You are starting to sound very self-righteous.

Ditto about the "self-righteous".

Tough questionS to answer with a yes or no....very "lawyerish"...

1. The county is breaking their own rules with the compatibility issue. They are probably breaking their own rules because of the commercial nature of the Redfish Village development in general. The private beach access lot becomes an extension of that development in a residential neighborhood.

2. Neighbors to the east: they can take whatever stand they would like; it's their right, maybe not right however.

3. BMBCA: they can also take whatever stand they would like as well. However, as I've clearly pointed out, they do not seem to be participating in objecting to this major development order. Richard Fowlkes and Anita Page are directors of BMBCA and they also own homes east of the 83 access. They are VERY OUTSPOKEN CONSERVATIONISTS but seem to have gone underground with this issue. Are they unethical, as you ask? I can't answer that. But at an absolute minimum, their apparent lack of action certainly wreaks of HYPOCRISY. And that's very bad regarding credibility for a group like this.

BMBCA and SWCC have done good things for the county and our neighborhood. But I sense they have totally turned their backs on this issue. If someone on this board can shine some light as to why, it would really be appreciated!

Also, where is your home, is it a house is it a condo? Are you east or west of 83

Does it matter?...and I think you already know anyway.

and are you a member of BMBCA?

No. And at one point, I considered joining, but I would not now.