• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Dragnet

Beach Comber
Dec 25, 2008
32
2
Recently, when the planning department provided the 50' height restriction language for all of Walton Co., due to the Jolly Bay project, the paper work that the planning dept. submitted to the BCC for consideration was the exact ordinance that they had used to put a height restriction of 50' on Walton co. south of the bay - they just struck out the words south of the bay. (its in public record).
If they wanted a height restriction north of the bay, why did they only put a 50 foot restriction south of the bay so many years ago?
 

Dragnet

Beach Comber
Dec 25, 2008
32
2
It seems the applicants met with county staff many many times. April 2005 with Tom Blackshear, August 2005 with Mark Jordan ( Walton co. planner) for a formal Pre-app, September 2006 Mark Martin(county planner) with George Newman (road concurrency Eng. for Walton Co.) in attendance, Lois LaSuer November 2006, Lois Suer and Melissa Ward, May 2007. PUD recommended by staff and put on the August 1, 2007 agenda for TRC. No compatibility study required, no mention of urban, no mention of height restriction on the staff report, after meeting how many times with the applicant? I am sure the applicant spent many $$$$ to bring the project up to planning dept.rules before they would recommend it move forward.
Silly thing about it, Lois LaSuer raved about how great the plans were that were sitting ing front of her on the table, and then told everyone in the room, Planning staff had no problems with this project, not in a private meeting with her, but in her meeting room at the county courthouse with many people in attendance.
 
Last edited:

Andy A

Beach Fanatic
Feb 28, 2007
4,389
1,738
Blue Mountain Beach
politician, republican... :doh:
I certainly hope you are trying to be funny because the issue of aesthetic and proper land use and zoning (which Walton County has none of but need badly) transcends any thing to do with parties and should also transcend politics as well though admittedly many times it doesn't.
 

Dragnet

Beach Comber
Dec 25, 2008
32
2
While the applicants were going thru all this red tape with the planning department to bring their plans up to the counties requirements; Eng., road, design, topo, wetlands etc. Everything to meet the land development code and comprehensive plan.
Where was the planning director for all these years?
If her right hand person lois laseur is having issues with a project coming down the pipeline, why haven't the planning director and herself relayed anything to the taxpayers who are applying for the pud? Instead she has the local taxpayers (applicants) jumping through all kinds of hoops, but never was the compatibility hoop, the height loop , the urban loop, or the planning director hoop presented to the local taxpayers. Would you want your taxpayer money paying planning staff to be misdirecting you? Take a look at the report planning staff submitted for the the first trc meeting. (public record) you see if you see any of these "made up later" issues you let me know.
 
Last edited:

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,777
819
Conflictinator
I certainly hope you are trying to be funny because the issue of aesthetic and proper land use and zoning (which Walton County has none of but need badly) transcends any thing to do with parties and should also transcend politics as well though admittedly many times it doesn't.

more about the poster and not the problem. there was a little snip in another thread about how saintly republicans are...

indeed, Walton needs to get on the stick sooner than later while we are in a period of transition(hopefully short) and get codes, and enforcement figured out with some reality based judgment.

in response to something else earlier in this thread, you'd be surprised how readily some will sue regarding their 'view corridor', knowing full well where they're buying and what buildout plan is to be. the 'I was here first' mentality is strong.
 

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,646
9,496
Recently, when the planning department provided the 50' height restriction language for all of Walton Co., due to the Jolly Bay project, the paper work that the planning dept. submitted to the BCC for consideration was the exact ordinance that they had used to put a height restriction of 50' on Walton co. south of the bay - they just struck out the words south of the bay. (its in public record).
If they wanted a height restriction north of the bay, why did they only put a 50 foot restriction south of the bay so many years ago?

It was enacted to prevent South Walton from looking like an extension of PCB or Destin.
 

scooterbug44

SoWal Expert
May 8, 2007
16,732
3,330
Sowal
It was enacted to prevent South Walton from looking like an extension of PCB or Destin.
Thank goodness! There but for the grace of a height restriction goes Sowal! :love:
Given the current infrastructure, population, and density of this area, there is absolutely no reason to build anything over 50'. Many long established urban areas have a similar height restriction to promote a healthy density and living environment.
 
more about the poster and not the problem. there was a little snip in another thread about how saintly republicans are...

indeed, Walton needs to get on the stick sooner than later while we are in a period of transition(hopefully short) and get codes, and enforcement figured out with some reality based judgment.

in response to something else earlier in this thread, you'd be surprised how readily some will sue regarding their 'view corridor', knowing full well where they're buying and what buildout plan is to be. the 'I was here first' mentality is strong.

Strong and Stupid.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter