In the words of Commissioner Meadow, "this is a trainwreck."
For the record, Jimmy, I've been purple for a few years.
For the record, Jimmy, I've been purple for a few years.
Last edited:
Naturewalk at Seagrove
- Thread starter Smiling JOe
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Folks, take the time to read through SJ's information. Chapter 8 is only 5 pages long and is written very clearly.
As I understand the situation:
1. The 4 lots the beach club will be on are zoned Residential Preservation,
2. The existing use of those lots is currently defined as non-conforming use,
3. It is the desire of the county (according to the Land Development Code (LDC)) to gradually eliminate non-conforming uses,
4. Non-conforming uses cannot be enlarged or improved to the extent that the investment makes them more permanent structures,
5. If 50% of existing structures on non-conforming uses are destroyed by any means they cannot be rebuilt and new structures must be in complete conformance with the LDC,
6. To be in conformance with the LDC and being zoned Residential Preservation, only one residence per lot is allowed.
If I have this right, then my only remaining question is how the heck are the commissioner's jobs defined? Okay, one more question: If this is allowed, what will keep these commissioners from approving huge condo complexes in some of the public parks (or similar areas) if they are allowed to completely ignore the codes?
As I understand the situation:
1. The 4 lots the beach club will be on are zoned Residential Preservation,
2. The existing use of those lots is currently defined as non-conforming use,
3. It is the desire of the county (according to the Land Development Code (LDC)) to gradually eliminate non-conforming uses,
4. Non-conforming uses cannot be enlarged or improved to the extent that the investment makes them more permanent structures,
5. If 50% of existing structures on non-conforming uses are destroyed by any means they cannot be rebuilt and new structures must be in complete conformance with the LDC,
6. To be in conformance with the LDC and being zoned Residential Preservation, only one residence per lot is allowed.
If I have this right, then my only remaining question is how the heck are the commissioner's jobs defined? Okay, one more question: If this is allowed, what will keep these commissioners from approving huge condo complexes in some of the public parks (or similar areas) if they are allowed to completely ignore the codes?
Last edited:
pjurney, you state it more simply than I. I am still purple and the story is project has so many flaws, that my mind goes from one tanget of this trainwreck to the next. You summarize if well.
TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
I'm going to read through the LDC parts mentioned but I'm also wondering, where is the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in regards to this parcel? Any potential violations of Department of Environmental Protection CCCL development rules would certainly fall under state oversight. Was there any discussion about this at the meeting? And how the heck can one dig into a dune to build parking?
TFT, according to the maps, at that property, the CCCL runs parallel with the beach, located about 135 ft off of the 30A right of way on the west side, and about 151 ft off of 30A right of way on the east side. By looking at the map, it will cut the proposed buildings in half.
No, that was never brought up, nor was the fact that their seawall is on County property along with a small pavilion. What was brought up was the fact that one of the existing buildings currently is positioned partially on County property.
As for the underground parking in the dunes, I should point out that the entire property currently sets on top of dunes.
No, that was never brought up, nor was the fact that their seawall is on County property along with a small pavilion. What was brought up was the fact that one of the existing buildings currently is positioned partially on County property.
As for the underground parking in the dunes, I should point out that the entire property currently sets on top of dunes.
Last edited:
TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
If this is true, then it appears that the DEP will have some major problems with this beach club.
From the DEP website, a summary:
"The Coastal Construction Control Line Program (CCCL) is an essential element of Florida's coastal management program. It provides protection for Florida's beaches and dunes while assuring reasonable use of private property. Recognizing the value of the state?s beaches, the Florida legislature initiated the Coastal Construction Control Line Program to protect the coastal system from improperly sited and designed structures which can destabilize or destroy the beach and dune system. Once destabilized, the valuable natural resources are lost, as are its important values for recreation, upland property protection and environmental habitat. Adoption of a coastal construction control line establishes an area of jurisdiction in which special siting and design criteria are applied for construction and related activities. These standards may be more stringent than those already applied in the rest of the coastal building zone because of the greater forces expected to occur in the more seaward zone of the beach during a storm event."
The DEP, the attorney general's office, and governor Crist's office obviously must be alerted to what's going on. Carving out underground parking in the dunes? Good lord.
Keep in mind that I am basing my info on building location upon what the representative for Nature Walk was stating. They had no handout containing the info. (I guess it is easier not to get caught in the wrong that way.) What I recall was that the building set back from the rear of the lot was 20Ft and their building was going to be something like 22 ft back from the property line, thereby placing it in the CCCL. Currently, one of the buildings is on County property, not conforming to the set backs.
TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
Folks, take the time to read through SJ's information. Chapter 8 is only 5 pages long and is written very clearly.
As I understand the situation:
1. The 4 lots the beach club will be on are zoned Residential Preservation,
2. The existing use of those lots is currently defined as non-conforming use,
3. It is the desire of the county (according to the Land Development Code (LDC)) to gradually eliminate non-conforming uses,
4. Non-conforming uses cannot be enlarged or improved to the extent that the investment makes them more permanent structures,
5. If 50% of existing structures on non-conforming uses are destroyed by any means they cannot be rebuilt and new structures must be in complete conformance with the LDC,
6. To be in conformance with the LDC and being zoned Residential Preservation, only one residence per lot is allowed.
If I have this right, then my only remaining question is how the heck are the commissioner's jobs defined? Okay, one more question: If this is allowed, what will keep these commissioners from approving huge condo complexes in some of the public parks (or similar areas) if they are allowed to completely ignore the codes?
Very well-written summary pgurney. Looks accurate to me. Sadly.
I've been observing this trend for several years.....allow it in sowal so that nowal can remain the same.....
I don?t understand where the money is coming from. The last time I drove through Nature Walk not a single home was under construction, and no one except one lonesome sales person was in the office. How can the developer undertake a project of this magnitude in today?s market?
It will be horrible if this property becomes a partially-completed, weed infested, abandoned eyesore.
It will be horrible if this property becomes a partially-completed, weed infested, abandoned eyesore.