Naturewalk at Seagrove

[Smiling JOe]

Re: Stunning Decision, Not !

So, I'm not clear on this part. Is everything technically legal? Are there clearly parts of the plan that don't comply with current code?

The whole idea obviously stinks but I'd like to be able to do something other than complain. If there are gray areas, I wonder if this would be of interest to our Legislature. Maybe the head of the house insurance committee? I dunno, but the Legislature is currently (bleep)ing bricks about the fact that it is now on the hook for billions of dollars in potential hurricane damages and I would think someone in the state government would be unhappy about a high density, not-really-legal project on the dunes that somehow got past county planners. The whole concept goes against everything the Legislature would like to see right now. Lemme guess ... those units would have to be insured by Citizens.

From what Pat Blackshear stated last night, the Planning Dept was simply trying to do their job, and was leaving the burden of proof of C&R's up to NatureWalk to present to the Board of County Commissioners, which never happend. Whether or not is was legal, I don't know. I am not an attorney. However, I can tell you that using the Covenants and Restrictions, which they were basing this project upon, it isn't allowable. NatureWalk mentioned more than once that they reduced the size of the original plans to meet the Comp Plan. (so to me, it sounds like they weren't trying to slide in on the C&R's, but rather meet the Comp Plan requirements). If they want to use the Comp Plan requirements, NatureWalk Beach Club as presented fails very short on many terms, including but not limited to the number of units per lot and the use of commercial building within 250ft from RP zoned neighborhood. Since RP allows for only 1 single family dwelling per lot of record, this property, consisting of four lots would be allowed a maximum density of only four, single family residences, not 22 condos, along with much commmercial space. No matter which way you try to ram this through, it fails to meet County guidelines on many regards.

 

[Smiling JOe]

So they are saying this parcel has become part of the Planned Urban Development of NatureWalk, and thus must follow the NatureWalk C&Rs? What are those original C&Rs and can someone post a copy of them online? How did this parcel, so recently purchased, get folded into the NatureWalk PUD? Was doing so legal, if the zoning on the beachfront parcel is as you say Residential Preservation?...

It gets a little complicated because while the zoning for subject property is RP, the non-comforming use is commercial. There are rules in place that restrict expansion of the structures if the non-conforming property changes ownership. The rules state that no expansion (undefined) is to take place. (period!) If expansion of the footprint takes place, it is no longer allowed to go under the non-conforming use. It would have to be submitted as a new project, which in this case, being that the property is acutally zoned RP, would allow for a maximum of four single family homes, and nothing else. No commercial nor mixed use.

As for your other question, I'm not sure, but I don't think the Beach Club is part of the PUD, which has already been approved.

BTW, I had a copy of the C&R's and original deed, but threw them out long ago while trying to organize. Since the original deed dates back to 1953 I think, they are attainable on the www, but anything prior to 1976 has a different filing method, and I forgot how to access it. You can call to the Clerk of Courts office, and they should be able to walk you through it. FYI - The subject property consists of LOTS 14-15-16-17, BLK 7 SEAGROVE 3RD ADD

 

[TooFarTampa]

It gets a little complicated because while the zoning for subject property is RP, the non-comforming use is commercial. There are rules in place that restrict expansion of the structures if the non-conforming property changes ownership. The rules state that no expansion (undefined) is to take place. (period!) If expansion of the footprint takes place, it is no longer allowed to go under the non-conforming use. It would have to be submitted as a new project, which in this case, being that the property is acutally zoned RP, would allow for a maximum of four single family homes, and nothing else. No commercial nor mixed use.

As for your other question, I'm not sure, but I don't think the Beach Club is part of the PUD, which has already been approved.

Are these guidelines part of the Land Development Code?

I'm sorry for the silly question, but I couldn't find this online. What exactly did they approve yesterday? If the plans have not been submitted to the county, the building itself could not hve been approved. Unless the county planners are now signing blank blueprints and handing them over to developers. :shock:

 

[Smiling JOe]

Are these guidelines part of the Land Development Code?

I'm sorry for the silly question, but I couldn't find this online. What exactly did they approve yesterday? If the plans have not been submitted to the county, the building itself could not hve been approved. Unless the county planners are now signing blank blueprints and handing them over to developers. :shock:

I think Nature Walk must have given the County Planners a verbal overview, because project Planner Tim Brown, when asked, stated that he had not seen the architectural plans. Tim is the person in charge of this project so you would think that if anyone at the County level would see the plans, it would be him.

One person noted to the BCC at last night's meeting that she thought it was really fishy that NatureWalk had no presentation to give the BCC regarding their project other than a verbal presentation. No pictures, no drawings, no anything regarding the Beach Club. Having been to plenty of these meetings, I smelled stinky fish when I entered the room.

I believe those guidelines are part of the land development code, but don't quote me on that. That have so many codes around here that I cannot keep up. Some things, they don't even have written down, according to my recent visit to the Planning Dpt. I suggested that it would be nice to have the rules in writing so that I wouldn't be wasting our time.

 

[TooFarTampa]

I think Nature Walk must have given the County Planners a verbal overview, because project Planner Tim Brown, when asked, stated that he had not seen the architectural plans. Tim is the person in charge of this project so you would think that if anyone at the County level would see the plans, it would be him.

One person noted to the BCC at last night's meeting that she thought it was really fishy that NatureWalk had no presentation to give the BCC regarding their project other than a verbal presentation. No pictures, no drawings, no anything regarding the Beach Club. Having been to plenty of these meetings, I smelled stinky fish when I entered the room.

I believe those guidelines are part of the land development code, but don't quote me on that. That have so many codes around here that I cannot keep up. Some things, they don't even have written down, according to my recent visit to the Planning Dpt. I suggested that it would be nice to have the rules in writing so that I wouldn't be wasting our time.

Thanks SJ. Okay, I'm trying to be specific here and like everyone here I am slower than 6thgen so I want to make sure I get it.

Last night the County Commission (66.7 percent of it) approved a project that:

1) Hasn't been seen on paper by anyone in the county
2) Is not part of the orignal NatureWalk PUD
3) If built as described, clearly violates significant restrictions laid out in county code on that type of property.


If so, WTF?

 

[GoodWitch58]

You probably have it right. This is why I stopped going to Co. Commission meetings...I would need one of Dr. Skunky's strange prescriptions....It is unbelieveable..

 

[Smiling JOe]

Thanks SJ. Okay, I'm trying to be specific here and like everyone here I am slower than 6thgen so I want to make sure I get it.

Last night the County Commission (66.7 percent of it) approved a project that:

1) Hasn't been seen on paper by anyone in the county
2) Is not part of the orignal NatureWalk PUD
3) If built as described, clearly violates significant restrictions laid out in county code on that type of property.


If so, WTF?

After a quick double check, my earlier answer is correct. Those rules to which I referred are part of the Land Development Code. I also found some new information which should present problems for NatureWalk. Check out Chapter 8 of the Walton County Land Development Code. Specifically, 8.01.03 Termination of Nonconforming Development, Section A.

Here are some references for you regarding this Beach Club.

from the Land Development Code:
1.06.02 (that is in Chpt 1)
1.08.00
8.01.02 sections A,B,C, & E (this is chpt 8)
8.01.03

I think they make logical sense to me. Board of County Commissioners is responsible for enforcing the Covenants and Deed Restrictions (which they didn't do last night). The Burden of Proof is upon the owner, not Walton County (this is what Pat Blackshear was stating). Once they stop using this property as it is, and the structure's (Not entire property) fair market value is diminished by more than 50%, "no repairs or rebuilding shall be permitted," except by the terms in the Code (in which case, Nature Walk Beach Club does not meet the Code on several accounts.)

Hope this above info clarifies a few things. It is really fairly clear to anyone who reads it.

 

[TooFarTampa]

After a quick double check, my earlier answer is correct. Those rules to which I referred are part of the Land Development Code. I also found some new information which should present problems for NatureWalk. Check out Chapter 8 of the Walton County Land Development Code. Specifically, 8.01.03 Termination of Nonconforming Development, Section A.

Here are some references for you regarding this Beach Club.

from the Land Development Code:
1.06.02 (that is in Chpt 1)
1.08.00
8.01.02 sections A,B,C, & E (this is chpt 8)
8.01.03

I think they make logical sense to me. Board of County Commissioners is responsible for enforcing the Covenants and Deed Restrictions (which they didn't do last night). The Burden of Proof is upon the owner, not Walton County (this is what Pat Blackshear was stating). Once they stop using this property as it is, and the structure's (Not entire property) fair market value is diminished by more than 50%, "no repairs or rebuilding shall be permitted," except by the terms in the Code (in which case, Nature Walk Beach Club does not meet the Code on several accounts.)

Hope this above info clarifies a few things. It is really fairly clear to anyone who reads it.

Thanks SJ. I will read up on this tonight.

 

[John R]

Thanks SJ. Okay, I'm trying to be specific here and like everyone here I am slower than 6thgen so I want to make sure I get it.

Last night the County Commission (66.7 percent of it) approved a project that:

1) Hasn't been seen on paper by anyone in the county
2) Is not part of the orignal NatureWalk PUD
3) If built as described, clearly violates significant restrictions laid out in county code on that type of property.


If so, WTF?

pretty much. it was interesting at the beginning of the review C. Meadows stated that they(BCC) have never seen the entire pagkage of this project, since the get-go. it appears that the project has been roiled in so much turmoil that every meeting has been a continuation based on minutiae. as was last night. the fact that it got passed in this fashion is criminal, imo.

 

[jimmyp5]

JohnR, i agree with your summary

SJ, thank you, and I admire you for wading thru all the rules & regs .... I don't have the ability to do so & then see how the majority of the BCC just ignores them, without turning purple with outrage

I really hoped that there was enough evidence easily at hand this time for the planning staff & the BCC to 'just say no' for once, but it just doesn't happen. And they didn't even hold the applicant's feet to the fire, but made it easy it sounds like. Cindy acknowledged that they've still never seen the whole thing on paper?!? Of course! Why didn't I think of that?!? Then they can just make you do what you agreed to .... if you never show 'em, it's an even bigger free-for-all.

MAYBE some day the County will understand that enforcing the rules & holding the line on overdevelopment will be positive, desirable, will protect what we've got here ....maybe some day, but I'm afraid it'll be long after I'm outa here.

After my anger subsides, this whole business makes me very, very sad.