Redfish Village Beach Access

...
Apparently the planning staff will tell the commission that there is nothing technical preventing their approval. It sounds like this will come down to a subjective decision about compatibility by the commissioners. If the public raises enough cane and the commission worries that this is a bad idea and could set a precedent they might deny it.

Most likely though they will just pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and let them deal with it. The BCC is notorious for rolling over to the party more likely to sue....

In one sense I agree with you, the final product has not been completed. If purchasing a unit with promised amenities (i.e. beach access, gazebo, picnic tables, bathrooms, whatever else they indicated...) and now the developer is advertising they do not have these things, much less the access, then that is a problem. edroe appears to be referring to this http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2005/07/18/focus1.html?from_rss=1

To the best of my knowledge, the minutes will not be approved until the next Board Meeting, which should be around Jan 9, just guessing without looking at a calendar. Then, the County typically takes a few days to make them available online or for walk-in customers requesting them.

"(Developers) are fat and happy on the condo development right now," he says.

I wasn't at the meeting but heard there was nothing new. If the developer meets the advertising deadline, they can get on the next agenda for the planning commission meeting Jan. 11.

Apparently the planning staff will tell the commission that there is nothing technical preventing their approval. It sounds like this will come down to a subjective decision about compatibility by the commissioners. If the public raises enough cane and the commission worries that this is a bad idea and could set a precedent they might deny it.

Most likely though they will just pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and let them deal with it. The BCC is notorious for rolling over to the party more likely to sue.

This issue is really absurd when you think about it. Scenic 30A beaches will become walled and guarded with rent a cops all over the place protecting turf and telling people to get off the private beaches. Tow trucks will be everywhere because thousands of cars from large developments and subdivisions will be trying to park near their private accesses.

Today, 80 units at Redfish, tomorrow, 2,400 homes in <name goes here> subdivision. And what's to prevent existing developments, whether it be 6 homes, 45 condos, 22 townhomes, or 234 apartments from buying gulf front property and doing the same thing?

Buster-Tell me a little more seems you know the meeting is January 11th. It was suppose to be Feb. 8th and somehow changed. Did you know that or did you just guess they would get on the Jan 11th list?

edroedrog - Can you elaborate on the documents you've seen and how they will prevent the private beach access? And will they be presented to the planning commission or BCC?

I thought you knew that a Lawyer had been retained for the community. He is going to fight it for the folks just like the 1st lot that was denied PrivateBA. Did not take them long to turn that one down.

Looks like the developer does not always win.

Codes strictly state what the land is to be used for.

The 1st lot has not been turned down by the county. I don't believe the codes reference private beach access for offsite developments one way or the other. This is new ground. If you call and ask planning staff they'll tell you there is nothing preventing the developer from getting the 2nd lot approved. That's why I say it comes down to the somewhat subjective determination of compatibility, which is what is referenced in the codes.

So again I ask you what document did you see and what did it say that makes you certain it will not be allowed?

That is also what the developer has consistantly said -- they own two lots which they have right to use as a blah, blah, blah.

I am uncertain whether or not if "compitable" is defined in the zoning codes. Anyone know?

The 1st lot has not been turned down by the county. I don't believe the codes reference private beach access for offsite developments one way or the other. This is new ground. If you call and ask planning staff they'll tell you there is nothing preventing the developer from getting the 2nd lot approved. That's why I say it comes down to the somewhat subjective determination of compatibility, which is what is referenced in the codes.

So again I ask you what document did you see and what did it say that makes you certain it will not be allowed?

Section 2.01.03L2.e. of the Code, This pertains to developent standards for all NPAs

Compatability with Existing Neighborhoods. The compatibility of new development with existing adjacent neighborhoods shall be considered as part of the review of any proposal for development within the NPA disstrict. To accomplisht this, all individual project plans and Neighborhood Plans shall establish a specific combination and quantity of uses which relate to existing adjacent conditions and in effect, preserve or enhance the desirable aspects of existing development in the adjacent areas and ensure compatible new development.

As I see it the first lot is a done deal. LyingFish Trailer Park would not have bought Lot 2 if this was not the case.

Not true. The developers chances of finding compatibilty and more varied types of building, ie-condos, on surrounding properties are much greater with lot number two, rather than lot number one due to lot number 1 is zoned as preservation residential allowing only one unit per half acre, I believe. Also, there are no condos in close proximity to lot number one. I believe it is the developer's strong opinion that lot #1 wouldn't cut the mustard. It was even much closer proximity to the Redfish Village, and the more natural path expected to be taken to get to the beach. They know they screwed up, but they know that WalCo Gov't is a pushover when it comes to money and networking. For a project which stands to lose this much money, it may be worth some gov't officials wearing leather skin and earplugs.

(Lot #1 and 2 are not the actual lot numbers -- just the order in which they were purchased)

Sounds to me like the "or enhance" part is what the developer has been focusing on, because he has been selling it as such that the surrounding properties will have increased value by the lot not having 5 units on it -- just some restrooms and a boardwalk with landscaping.

The new and improved Blue Mountain Beach and Seagrove Beach Private Beach Accesses:


Looks more like a concert lawn to me. Can you imagine the parking lot?

Pictures are louder than words. Love this post. This is what needs to be placed next to the Notice that LyingFish Trailer Park is going to put on Second attempt to save their @ss...(Lot 2 Buster)

So I have been updated this AM. Lot 1 is a no go for LyingFish Trailer Park. I will Post some info on this if you would love to see it Buster. I think you already have it though. If anyone needs this info let me know and I will consider PrivateEing it to you.

Sounds like you have personal issues with these people. Were you fired by them? I like reading your posts but it was easy to find out that you and Buster are wrong and there was never a judgement on the 1st lot and that they still have that lot as an option. I know people at hard2sell as you call it and I actually like them.

Disingenuous (at minimum) is my characterization of Redfish Village and New Orchard Group's position regarding the first bathroom lot. They have claimed they were never turned down by the county for the first lot.

This from an internal email dated May 4th, 2006, from the Planning Department (Lois La-Seur to Lynn Hoshihara) titled "Redfish Village letter":

"We have a situation where a developer and his realtor are telling prospective buyers that Walton County has approved a priate beach access for their residents across a single family lot in a residential subdivision. We have been receiving complaints about this for some time, and they've actually put out a brochure (I have a copy) with a description and a picture.

Problem is, we told the developer months and months ago that they couldn't build a beach access there; it violates the land use on that property.

The neighborhood where they are proposing this is very upset, and they keep calling both the department and the commissioners for the reassuance that the County has not and will not approve this beach access.

Commissioner Citchens asked that we send them a certified letter, return receipt requested, telling them in writing to stop advertising this - and to send it IMMEDIATELY."....


At the December 7th community meeting, Brad Zeitlin (RFV developer) claimed that they purchased the second bathroom lot for over 5 million dollars only because they thought this location would provide a "better experience" for the owners. He was also very adamant at the same meeting that the county never turned them down for the first bathroom lot.

When questioned again regarding this, George Ralph Miller, their attorney, finally admitted the reason they did not use the first lot was because of zoning. Even Mr. Miller recognized the hole they were digging themselves in when fudging the truth regarding the county's position regarding the first bathroom lot.

You be the judge.

It is interesting... When the seawalls went up on the beach the county was good. The right of membership in the beachfront club was protected. Touting private property rights people of the beachfront club post no trespass signs. The redfish developer owns this property but now you say he has no right! interesting! You say he has a high impact use, but after hurricanes it is your infrastructure that litters our beach and OUR water. You never clean it up! The high impact use you speak of would reduce the infrastucture footprint on the terminal dune, and the amount of debri on the beach and water. Interesting. And speaking of beach, now that the beach club has seawalls which will enhance erosion and cause our beach to disappear, we will need dredging ( called beach nourishment ) to have a beach! Who will pay for it? The masses pictured earlier on this thread! You had no problem taking their money as you giddily flipped property to enrich yourself. Now you want to croud them onto one access and limit their movement! Interesting! You represent a very ugly greedy argument.

Beemn...your petty accusations are pathetic.

You haven't done your homework. There are 4 public access walkways Redfish Village owners, guests, renters and invitees can use to disperse over the beach. One walkway vs Four walkways...you do the math!

Redfish Village continues to states that they have a right to use this property as a gateway! They don't have that RIGHT until the county says they have that RIGHT!