Redfish Village Beach Access

That name Lakefront (or maybe Lakeplace) at Redfish sounds right. I hear your concern about the homeowners association for Redfish Village selling rights to use the access. However, as I understand from the attorney frepresenting Redfish Village, only Redfish Village owners and guests, will be allowed to use thprivate access, and that language would be incorporated into the deed for that private access property, and it would remain forever with the property.

SJ...I understand that the Redfish Village attorney said in a meeting concerning this issue that he had never seen a legal document that couldn't be changed. If that's true, what assurances does the BMB neighborhood have that the language, or spirit of the document, won't be changed at a later date if the county approves Redfish Village's proposal now?

The Redfish Village beach access in on the Technical Review Committee Agenda for 12/20. It is advertised in the legal section of the DeFuniak Herald, which is the only notification required for this committee. The purpose of the TRC is for the applicants and planning staff to go over issues prior to being scheduled for the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. It is a public forum where private citizens can either attend or write in with their concerns. The logical progression would be for the project to go to the next Planning Commission, which will be held the 2nd Thursday in January and then the Board of County Commissioners the 4th Tuesday in January. Both of these meetings will have to be noticed by a sign on the property, mail-out notification to property owners within 300 feet, and twice in the legal section of the DeFuniak Herald. These dates would occur only if everything goes smoothly, as is the case for any project. You can find out the results of the PC and BCC meetings by calling our office the day after. Minutes for all meetings will be available after they have been approved.

My comments were in response to Fly for Fun's comments insinuated that these guys are amateurs who don't have experience working in Walton County.

They did make a mistake in marketing a "private beach access" before they had approval for one. Obviously it is a sensitive issue for both sides, but I think everyone should stop acting like they're in high school and work together for a solution.

I don't have an opinion of the development one way or the other, but I don't like it when individuals are personally attacked and trashed on these boards.

Camp Creek... this is serious stuff! If you see it as being high schoolish, then so be it. You may feel warm and fuzzy about these developers, but their proposal has nothing positive to add to the health and use of the beach or the protection of the marine life. How do you approve of that, not to mention their trying to sell a concept, deeded beachfront gated access, they don't have the ability to produce? Would you enjoy being deceived, manipulated and tricked when you purchase anything, much less a million dollar condo? I wouldn't.

Realizing you don't have an opinion on the development, but if you did, what would you suggest as a solution?

My comments were in response to Fly for Fun's comments insinuated that these guys are amateurs who don't have experience working in Walton County.

They did make a mistake in marketing a "private beach access" before they had approval for one. Obviously it is a sensitive issue for both sides, but I think everyone should stop acting like they're in high school and work together for a solution.

I don't have an opinion of the development one way or the other, but I don't like it when individuals are personally attacked and trashed on these boards.

Camp Kid, if these guys are so on top of everything, then why are they in trouble with the county or it's neighbors. Just look at the mess they are in and all the law suits that have been reported. I don't live down there full time but have been investing in SoWal county for over 10 years and constructed small projects along the gulf coast for 15 years. From personal experience, it's a very difficult place to build without having adequate knowledge in dealing with the county If you don't make your neighbor's happy, they are not going to sit back and take it on the chin.:roll: It's obvious that doing your own thing, then asking for forgiveness is not going to work anymore in Walton County.:nono1: Experience contractors and developer's are well aware of the post hurricane market adjustments that occur and know how to adapt to those market forces. Developers are going to have to get out of the mentality of "If you build it they will come" and never expect the negative impact from a bad hurricane season.

Fly for Fun, since you don't live or work here, you can't say that you have even a clue about what it takes to get anything done in Walton County. The fact of the matter is that Walton County is so inefficient that it literally takes years to get a project through to a development order.

Camp Creek, not everyone has problems working with Walton County. Experience makes the difference and following the rules and respecting your neigbors interest's goes a long way in this community.

Camp Creek... this is serious stuff! If you see it as being high schoolish, then so be it. You may feel warm and fuzzy about these developers, but their proposal has nothing positive to add to the health and use of the beach or the protection of the marine life. How do you approve of that, not to mention their trying to sell a concept, deeded beachfront gated access, they don't have the ability to produce? Would you enjoy being deceived, manipulated and tricked when you purchase anything, much less a million dollar condo? I wouldn't.

Realizing you don't have an opinion on the development, but if you did, what would you suggest as a solution?

you should join the surfrider foundation.

SJ...I understand that the Redfish Village attorney said in a meeting concerning this issue that he had never seen a legal document that couldn't be changed. If that's true, what assurances does the BMB neighborhood have that the language, or spirit of the document, won't be changed at a later date if the county approves Redfish Village's proposal now?

That sounds like a legal question, and I am not an attorney. Perhaps we have an attorney on the boards who can answer that question.

Camp Creek, not everyone has problems working with Walton County. Experience makes the difference and following the rules and respecting your neigbors interest's goes a long way in this community.

I'd like to know what experience you've had working with Walton County. The problem working with the county is that the rules change constantly and the interpretation of the rules change with the employees. Even developers who do everything right as far as permitting, zoning, neighbor relations, etc., still have 12-24 months of red tape to get through before they get a development order. I take issue with your statement that not everyone has problems working with Walton County. Are you a developer? Do you have personal knowledge of any developer who was able to get a development order in under 12 months with no problems?

Please understand that I'm not necessarily criticizing Walton County. Walton County is what it is, but your comment about these developers not knowing what they're doing in Walton County is inaccurate.

Re: Redfish Village Beach Access TRC Meeting Agenda

• Meeting Opened

• Minutes Read / Approved

• Announcements

• Items to be heard:

1) STARVIEW TERRACE PLAT - Project number 06 00300046 being a plat application submitted on October 16, 2006 by Alnilam Development Corp., Owner, and Darrell Barnhill, Agent, for property identification number 02-3S-20-34160-000-0160 consisting of 8 multi family units on 1.04 +/- acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Melissa Ward. The site is located approximately 0.5 miles west of County Road 393 on County Road 30A, then go north on Satinwood approximately .25 miles. (Continued from November 15, 2006 Meeting).

2) KRUSE BOAT HOUSE Project number 06 01300040 being a less than minor application submitted on September 14, 2006 by Chandler Huff and Kruse Enterprises of NWFL, Inc. for property identification number 24-2S-21-42270-000-0200 consisting of one (1) 480 square foot building on .328 +/- acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Melissa Ward. The site is located on Mack Bayou Road to Elrods Fish Camp and the site is south of the fish camp. (Item continued from October 18, 2006, November 1, 2006, November 15, 2006 and December 6, 2006 meetings).

3) THE COTTAGES AT LAKEVIEW PUD Project number 06 00100095 being a major development order submitted on August 16, 2006 by Jack Rhodes for property identification number 34-2S-20-33270-058-0005 consisting of a planned unit development for 136 single family units on 20 +/- acres with a land use designation of Neighborhood Preservation Area/Small Neighborhood being reviewed by Tim Brown. The site is located approximately 4 miles west of the intersection of Highways 331 and 98 on Thompson Road. Turn left off of Highway 98 going south on Thompson Road and the property is located approximately mile on the east side.

4) INLET BEACH BUNGALOWS - Project number 06-00100131 being a minor development order application submitted November 13, 2006 by Seaside Eng. - James Barton, as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 36-3S-18-16100-000-0300 consisting of 9 single-family units with a future land use designation of Village Mixed Use being reviewed by Tim Brown. This site is located approximately 1,000 feet west of CR30A and 200 feet east of West Shore Drive on the north side of U.S. Highway 98.

5) PHILIPS LANDING SUBDVISION - Project number 06-00100132 being a major development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Quantum Engineering Group, Inc. as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 25-3S-18-16090-000-0210 & 0211 consisting of 4 single family lots on 1.08 acres with a future land use designation of NPA / Infill being reviewed by Mark Martin. This site is located north of U.S. Highway 98 on the northwest corner of Pine Wood and Orange Street.

6) REDFISH VILLAGE GATEWAY - Project number 06-00100133 being a major development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Les Porterfield as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0032 consisting of a restroom and pavilion on 0.63 acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Jason Bryan. This site is located three lots west of CR 83 and Blue Mountain Road intersection, south of Blue Mountain Road.

7) LOTS 7 & 8 SOUTH WALTON COMMERCE PARK - Project number 06-00100134 being a minor development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Terry Anderson, P.E. as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 05-3S-18-16010-000-0070 and 05-3S-18-16010-000-0080 consisting of 2 buildings totaling 33,756 for Office/Warehouse on 2.49 acres with a future land use designation of Business Park District being reviewed by Misty Ferrell. This site is located on the west side of Serenoa Road.

8) CHURCHILL OAKS Project number 06-001-00135 being a major development order application submitted November 29, 2006 by Wilson Miller Engineering for property identification number 21-2S-20-33000-005-0000 consisting of 102-lot single family subdivision with amenities on 41 acres with future land use designation of NPA / Infill and Conservation Residential 2:1 reviewed by Jason Bryan. This site is located north of Highway 98 down Mussett Bayou Road and east on Hodge Road approximately miles.

9) STARVIEW TERRACE LTM - Project number 06-013-00052 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 16, 2006 by Barnhill, Barnhill and Barnhill, Agent for the applicant, for property identification number 02-3S-20-34160-000-0160 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to move the pool house with future land use designation of NPA / Infill reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located approximately 0.5 miles west of County Road 393 on County Road 30A, then go north on Satinwood approximately .25 miles.

10) VILLAGE OF BAYTOWNE WHARF AMENDMENT - Project number 06-013-00053 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 21, 2006 by Will Poon, P.E. of Connelly & Wicker, Inc. as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 26-2S-21-42000-001-0150 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan with future land use designation of Coastal Center being reviewed by Renee Bradley. The site is located within Sandestin.

11) SACRED OAKS LTM - Project number 06-013-00054 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 21, 2006 by Regional Engineering, Don Brock, Engineer for the applicant, for property identification number 24-2S-21-42000-035-000 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to include swimming pools on site with future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Melissa Ward. The site is located on Mack Bayou Road in the Sacred Oaks Subdivision.

12) REDFISH VILLAGE AMENDMENT TO D/O 402003 - Project number 06-013-00055 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 27, 2006 by Les Porterfield as Engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0081 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to add a dock and move preservation on site with future land use designation of Village Mixed Use being reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located at the corner of CR 30A and CR83 (2064 West County Hwy 30A).

13) SOUTH WALTON FIRE DISTRICT ADDITION LTM - Project number 06-013-00056 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 27, 2006 by Barnhill, Barnhill and Barnhill as agent for the applicant, for property identification number 27-2s-20-33210-000-0021 consisting of a 4,000 square foot building on 9.54 acres with future land use designation of Conservation Residential 2:1 being reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located on the west side of CR393 approximately 1 mile north of Hwy 98 (911 N. Co. Hwy 393).

• Meeting adjourned

Please understand that I'm not necessarily criticizing Walton County. Walton County is what it is, but your comment about these developers not knowing what they're doing in Walton County is inaccurate.

Yes, I have had enough experience getting permits with the county and yes when you are inexperienced you run into problems. Experienced developers do not have the kind of problems this development is experiencing! The problem with saying you have private beach access when there is none, that is called fraud! Now who in their right mind would want to buy in a development that is not considerate of its neighbors, environment or the law? Yes, the county may be slow and methodical, but its to everyones best interest. Like someone told me recently at a dinner party, "they do it to everyone, so be happy".

Camp Creek... this is serious stuff! If you see it as being high schoolish, then so be it. You may feel warm and fuzzy about these developers, but their proposal has nothing positive to add to the health and use of the beach or the protection of the marine life. How do you approve of that, not to mention their trying to sell a concept, deeded beachfront gated access, they don't have the ability to produce? Would you enjoy being deceived, manipulated and tricked when you purchase anything, much less a million dollar condo? I wouldn't.

Realizing you don't have an opinion on the development, but if you did, what would you suggest as a solution?

What is high schoolish is people getting on these boards making malicious comments about people they don't know and talking about POSSIBLE pending lawsuits and rumored investigations. I did not say the topic is high schoolish, but the way some people are trying to villianize these developers is irresponsible. If there is proof that these guys intentionally tried to deceive and manipulate their purchaser's, then I'll listen.

The beach issue is one part of the story. The other part of the story is that a bunch a people threw their money into these condo reservations and are now desperate to get out of their contracts. As I already said, there were people on this board thrilled to get a reservation 2 years ago.

I am finding the facts. I am posting these for the folks that want to know what is going on with the Redfish Village

The beach issue is one part of the story. The other part of the story is that a bunch a people threw their money into these condo reservations and are now desperate to get out of their contracts.

Do you know for a fact that there are people trying to get out of their contracts? No one has mentioned that on here. Only folks that are concerned about the beach and the neighborhood.

On the other issues you are being a little too defensive IMHO. Flyforfun made a general statement about the "devlopers" not knowing what they are doing which is pretty evident from the fact that they were offering something they can't get approved and marketed it and got around 60 signed contracts based on it. If that's not incompetent I don't know what is. But even if you have a different opinion, Flyforfun was making a general observation and you accused him of trashing individuals when no individuals or names were even mentioned.

I am finding the facts. I am posting these for the folks that want to know what is going on with the Redfish Village

Thanks for keeping us informed. Too much is done around here behind closed doors.

...and got around 60 signed contracts based on it...

based on a beach walkover? quite a stretch.

based on a beach walkover? quite a stretch.

I, too, doubt the private beach walkover being the thing that sold investors on these condos. HOWEVER, if the buyers who are looking for a way out, I am sure that the private walkover will have been a very important selling point when originally the project was originally pitched to them. The developers have already spent close to $9,000,000 for two lots as potential private beach accesses, so they, too, feel like it was a critical part of the sales Redfish Village project.

Interestingly enough, the first lot which they purchased for the private access location is the better of the two locations for two reasons, in my opinion. It is the closer of the two properties to Redfish Village. Also, it leads to public beaches, so there shouldn't be a problem with onwers and guests sitting on someone's privately owned beach property. The problem with that particular lot is that the zoning is preservation residential allowing for even less density than the lot which they are trying to use for the private access. Seems a bit twisted to me, but that is the red tape in which Redfish Village seems to be stuck.

Personally, I think the County and these new developments should have worked more closely in regards to providing more public access to the beach, not private. In a previous post, I mentioned that I was against all four of these developments because of the impact which they will have on the beaches and Big Redfish Lake. I also am against Redfish Village and Lakeside at Blue Mtn Beach (I drove over and looked at that name) due to the additional stress it will have on the public access. I am not picking on these two. Any developments which will cause more stress on existing, limited public accesses is a major concern which the County needs to address. Lack of restrooms at these entry points to the beaches also needs to be remedied.

based on a beach walkover? quite a stretch.

to try and truly argue that having beach access is not a major selling point is extremely naive.

to try and truly argue that having beach access is not a major selling point is extremely naive.

Beach access should not be an issue because there are several for that area. Private beach access IS the issue. There are several public beach accesses in that area, although I know of one which is still closed from storm damage.

If the developers had left out the word "private" when describing beach access, there would not be a problem for the developers. However, there would still be the problem of many more users being dumped onto the beach in that area.

they are still advertising on their website private beach access

http://www.redfishvillage.com/renderings.html
http://www.redfishvillage.com/amenities.html

is this accurate?

Beach access should not be an issue because there are several for that area. Private beach access IS the issue. There are several public beach accesses, although I know of one which is still closed from storm damage in that area.

i agree they are still advertising private beach access on their website.

Beach access should not be an issue because there are several for that area. Private beach access IS the issue. There are several public beach accesses in that area, although I know of one which is still closed from storm damage.

If the developers had left out the word "private" when describing beach access, there would not be a problem for the developers. However, there would still be the problem of many more users being dumped onto the beach in that area.

As a point of clarification, there are two public accesses that have not been rebuilt YET. Gulf PT. Road and Seagrade RD. Both of these will be repaired by May 1. As for restrooms, they will be built at CR 83 Winter 07 if we don't have to reallocate funds for more hurricanes. Let me know if you have any questions...

Brad

As a point of clarification, there are two public accesses that have not been rebuilt YET. Gulf PT. Road and Seagrade RD. Both of these will be repaired by May 1. As for restrooms, they will be built at CR 83 Winter 07 if we don't have to reallocate funds for more hurricanes. Let me know if you have any questions...

Brad

Winter '07 being Dec, or Jan/Feb?

Redtape Village

Can somebody from each camp give me a Cliff Note's version of the dispute here? I am way too lazy to read all the thread, but want to know why everyone sounds like they are about to beat the living crap out of each other.
Thanks-S'ape

Winter '07 being Dec, or Jan/Feb?

Can I be wrong, just kidding. Right now, we hope to have the new restrooms at CR 83 under construction Decemeber 2007. However, this should not be included in ANY sales materials.

All walkovers will be open May 2007.