Redfish Village Beach Access

Discussion in 'Real Estate' started by John R, Dec 8, 2006.

  1. John R

    John R needs to get out more

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    803
    Location:
    Conflictinator
    In an effort not to trample Mr. Wise's book thread any longer, here is a new thread specifically for discussion about Redfish Village and their beach access.

    So, BMBV, how did it go last night? Anything get ironed out?
     
  2. Smiling JOe

    Smiling JOe SoWal Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    31,648
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    I stopped reading the book thread after the book signing. Are you telling me that there has been discussion regarding Redfish Village Beach Access on that thread? :bang: What meeting are you talking about? Did I miss something? :idontno:. Off to the book thread.
     
  3. jmschill

    jmschill Beach Crab

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Little Rock Arkansas
    Did the meeting take place?
    If so does anyone know the outcome?
     
  4. John R

    John R needs to get out more

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    803
    Location:
    Conflictinator
    I was there. it seemed very subdued until someone named Albert raised the ire of Mr Zeitlin with questions that seemed like Albert already knew the answers to, and Mr. Zeitlin knew were coming.

    Parking on Blue Mountain Rd seems to be an issue, as well as containment of all owners on the property, which everyone except the developers, admits won't happen. There's more, but I'm sure those to be affected can give more detail.
     
  5. BMBWalker

    BMBWalker Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    John R...why don't you tell all of us how it went. I heard you were there.
     
  6. BMBWalker

    BMBWalker Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    John R...has Redfish Village violated the Florida Statues listed below?

    1. 475.25(1)(c). False, deceptive, or misleading advertising. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

    2. 475.421. Publication of false or misleading information; promotion of sales, leases, and rentals. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

    I ask you this specifically because I heard you spoke positively about this developmentand and thought it was an appropriate development and that Redfish Village was being fair in their approach.
     
  7. Smiling JOe

    Smiling JOe SoWal Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    31,648
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    :popcorn: BMBWALKER, I don't think your questions will be answered until a decision has been reached regarding the dedicated beach access.
     
  8. John R

    John R needs to get out more

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    803
    Location:
    Conflictinator
    ok, i'll bite. this may get long.

    regarding the statutes, i won't waste my time reading them since you already must have, and for some reason don't care to cite pertainent data, and i could care less if they've broken them. i'm sure they relate to some arcane real estate rules, and i guess the suspension relates to the brokers license. ho hum... but, in the sprit of fun, baiting discussion, i'll play devil's advocate. their extemely annoyingly slow, flash based site indicates that they will provide: BEACHWALK. An owners-only, private gateway and vista to the white sand beaches of the Gulf of Mexico is just a short stroll away.

    based only on what i heard, since i was in the same room as those you apparently have spoken to, they(redfish) can provide the above twice, since they own two pieces of property with direct beach access. they could, if they like, erect a fence, with a coded gate, build a single width boardwalk to the beach, and call it good. seems like the least impactful to me, but i'm sure some beachfront owner would find something wrong with that scenario. i actually like this idea.

    what they plan to do, is erect a contination of the redfish "experience" (steve seems locked in on this word)on their property, and construct what some architect somewhere thinks is asthetically pleasing, and hopes to get himself published with. that includes, as you know, a bike parking area, a vehicular turnaround for their delivery vehicle(i think), seperate male and female bathroom/bathhouse, and what steve states will be a single width boardwalk to the sand. i believe he also indicated that they would install tall(hopefully native) vegetation along the property lines to lessen visual impact to the adjacent neighbors. physically, looked quite pleasing, appeared to be low impact on the property(taken by itself) and as mentioned above, a continuation of what the developer is delivering north of 30a.

    allow me to take a little side bar here. i have not been to the neighborhood of the property in question. i have driven by, but not taken notice of the adjacent properties, or gone down to the beach there(who knows, i could be accosted for just walking around). so, i can't comment on what things there look like. i don't know if the developers property is surrounded by garrishly colored stucco mcmansions behind metal gates with huge walls, or they're wood frame beach cottages surrounded by a picket fence. or something in between. i will make it a task to go there today, so i have a point of reference. BMBV, please don't throw heavy objects at me

    ok, back. additionally, what was discussed, was the concerns of the homeowners that the entire population at 100% occupancy could be funneled through the property to the sand, and that the property could not contain all those people. as i mentioned above in another post, we all realize that will happen, and i believe i mentioned that in the meeting. the developer really never seemed to directly answer that issue. at some point mr. zeitlin mentioned that people could walk down all the south connecting streets toward the beach, and they were offering to mitigate that by running the shuttle(s). i never got the logisitics of how this will be performed, especially the return requests. there was a lady owner who lives across the street and a couple of houses down(west) who was concerned about people parking on the street. a legitimate concern that was never directly addressed either, imo.

    the man albert made some statements regarding a stop work order on the 1st property, and what he felt were some dirty dealings, but i am unqualified to discuss that.

    i stated that people will disperse all over the beach, and asked did the developer offer the county the money to be spent on their private lot, towards the public beach access for the inevitable increased use, and build new, or improve the existing bathhouse, access, etc. he stated that they had made that offer, and that all the county would accept was $50,000 toward improvements of the parking area. i believe it would cost less to have an employee with a radio at the public access, than maintan their proposed improved lot, but that is now moot.

    there was some other discussion that i can't recall, and the developers lawyer and engineering firm(i think) were referenced for clarification a couple of times. some man made a big deal of receiving a copy of the minutes(that was a annoying exchange).

    it appered that this meeting hosted by the developer, was just an open door for the neighbors to rehash what they've already discussed and throw barbs toward him, since no one really offered a working alternative.
    i'm not sure how my question/suggestion to the developer was perceived as positive toward his development. and. i'm sure this post will be picked apart and taken out of context(as apparently were, my statements) thereby supplying more justification to label me as some developer friendly, pinko commie, johnny come lately, artsy fartsy, homo loving, nonbeachfront owning surfrider menber...

    i can't believe i wasted so much time on this since i was in the same room as your (i think)friends, none of which have the balls to comment to date, when i was hoping to hear the neighbors state if they got any issues answered. i thought i had no stake in this issue, but another board member clarified it for me. he posed the scenario of an owls head type community buying up 4,5,6,7 lots and bringing down their population of 1200 homes and what would happen then. so, this is kind of a prescident(sp?) setting issue. either way, i can envision it turning into a bunch of little feifdoms with signs in the sand saying private, where one's neighbors are literally not in my backyard.

    were you there? if not, in the future, please do not call me out on topics that you do not have first hand knowledge of. please run back to the clique and report, but report accurately thanks.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2006
  9. Beachbummett

    Beachbummett SoWal Insider

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,748
    Likes Received:
    207
    Location:
    Birmingham and Watersound
    Ok SoWalSteve...since you were there please give us more details. What were the questions asked of Mr. Zeitlin by the man named Albert?:idontno: What were Mr. Zeitlin's answers? We need more details.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2006
  10. Jim Tucker

    Jim Tucker Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    195
    This idea is very worrisome and should concern everyone who is interested in the public/privtae beach issue, beach access, and property rights.

    In addition to what they're proposing not being compatible with surrounding uses, it is a bad idea for a private access for 80 units, or 1200. Next thing you know, large inland developments will be buying gulf front lots with hundreds or thousands of private users. Even buying small old condos and knocking them down for their private access clubs if needed.

    The gulf front lot in question is zoned infill which allows for 8 units. So lets say that is accepeted as an acceptable use. What the developer is proposing is a use with TEN TIMES the impact (80 units).

    The county should see this easily and deny the request. It shouldn't have gotten this far and is a waste of everyone's time and money.
     
  11. Smiling JOe

    Smiling JOe SoWal Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    31,648
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    The subject lot is zoned NPA Infill, according to the developers (I have not verified), but that allows for 8 units per acre. This property is listed having an area of .76 acres, according to the Walton PA's records, which would allow for a maximum of only 6 units on this lot. Of course, the units would have to be within the setbacks, so that number might dwindle even further. Also, keep in mind that the County will not always allow for maximum density. Anyway, I understand your point, and just wanted to slightly correct/clarify your statement. ;-)

    It is my opinion that the Developers prematurely spoke regarding this private beach access issue, and it could cause an escape for every person who has a reservation. That will be exciting for some people, but will be devastating for the lenders and the developers.

    IMO, their the opponents of this beach access/restrooms need not focus further than NPA-Infill requiring compatability, and this private access for 80 condo units will not be compatable to the surrounding properties, which are single family residences.

    As for your last paragraph, it isn't so simple because money seems to get in the way of following the law, and the spirit of the law, in this County.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2006
  12. Camp Creek Kid

    Camp Creek Kid Christini Zambini

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    Seacrest Beach
    This is the same issue that may come up regarding Nature Walk and its purchase of the Seagrove Villas for a beach access. Granted, the zoning may be different and the number of units at Seagrove Villas already using the beach at the location is obviously more than a vacant lot. However, considering the Owl's Head scenario, it does make for future problems.

    The private beach access is strictly for prestigue (and marketing). As for issues like Owl's Head or other developments that do not have easy direct access, the county needs to utilize existing public accesses and come up with how to address parking, etc. Existing parking is not sufficient and it will become a bigger and bigger problem
     
  13. John R

    John R needs to get out more

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    803
    Location:
    Conflictinator
    Jim45, thanks for bringing this point up. i completely forgot to mention it, and it is quite high on the list of why the neighbors claim the incompatibility.

    i went down to BMB yesterday, and after i showed my papers, was granted beach access, for 10 minutes. i keed, i keed... i did get some pictures though. i think i have the property in question figured out.

    this must be the property in question:
    sorry in not in focus
    [​IMG]

    bordered by:
    this
    [​IMG]

    and this
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    BMB sure is nice
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    seemed kind of quiet though
     
  14. BMBWalker

    BMBWalker Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    John R...as I said in our earlier communication this morning, I am surprised to learn that you did not know where the property is or what it looks like since you apparently spoke up positively for the Redfish Village proposal in the community meeting last week
     
  15. Smiling JOe

    Smiling JOe SoWal Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    31,648
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    So John R is for putting creating access for 80 units in an area of single family homes and small condo units? Wow! John R, you should be ashamed. :funn:Who wouold have ever guessed? :floor: I wish I could have heard John R's statements at that meeting. Maybe I can get a copy of the transcript.
     
  16. John R

    John R needs to get out more

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    803
    Location:
    Conflictinator
    c'mon, you're killing me here. did you not read my extensive post, written pretty much for your benefit, at your request? honestly, were you there? or are you basing this comment from discussions you've had with your BMB friends who actually were in the room? does my description of what i said differ from what they are telling you i said? and, if so, help me out.

    i will state my position here for you and all the BMB folk who still haven't commented on this forum. where, oh where, are the people/person, on this board, who was the vocal champion for the BMB SS?

    i believe anyone can do with their property what hey want, as long as it's legal and within confines of covenants, etc. and doesn't risk bodily harm.

    obviously, this will eventually work it's way up the judicial ladder and the courts will give the final answer, and you could realize the coveted suspension of whatever in the bargain.

    i agree(d) that there could potentially be 100's of people on the beach from redfish, and one piece of property will not contain them. what will happen then? will BMBV come out and chase them away with a stick? will the guy who owns the salmon fortress walk all the way around through the public access and tell them to leave the beach he can't even get to from his property? not too neighborly. will the BMB SS ever frequent the shops at RF? will tires be flattened? will signs be put up? etc, etc...

    as i stated, their plan(for the property) is one plan. i offered another less impactful one above. do i like their plan? who cares? NO ONE in that meeting, or on these pages has offered an alternative. that's what i don't understand. BMB will be getting a bunch of new neighbors soon, and they need to deal with it. proactive has always seemed a better way than reactive. sadly, i can anticipate hearling about some BMB gulffront owner chasing away some family from their precious beach cause they're sitting above the mean high water mark. try explaining that to a six year old. there's a lot of sand there for a few owners.

    if the above brands me as "feels positively" about redfish village's beach access, then that is my burden. one that i will be toiling over for about 6 seconds, or the next time you hit the enter button.

    what
    earlier communication this morning?
     
  17. Smiling JOe

    Smiling JOe SoWal Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    31,648
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Since I first found out about the four new developments in BMB on Big Redfish Lake, I have been against all four. The impact will be tremendous. For years, I have stated that Walton County needs more public parking for the beach accesses. On any given day in the season, the 83 access is full. Now, you are going to have two developments sending more people to that location. Parking has also been critical at Grayton Beach. The only place with decent parking is the public access between Seaside and WaterColor. Not everyone in SoWal lives within quick walking distance to the beach. The impact the four developments already has, and will have in the future, on Big Redfish Lake is bad, bad, bad. There was a time not too long ago, pre-armour plating of the beach, when I enjoyed the serenity of BMB. Today, I have to climb into my bubble, and put on my dreamy colored glasses in order to enjoy the serenity of that area. When the new developments are built out, forget about it. As someone else pointed out, Walton County is in critical need for parking at public beach accesses. I don't know that it matters whether the developments are close by or in Freeport, some smart and future minded decisions need to be made so that people can enjoy the beach and homeonwers in neighborhoods in close proximity to the beach can enjoy their right to privacy (people not peeing and parking in their yards).
     
  18. buster

    buster Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    SoWal
    Nope - he was neither positive or negative. JR Seemed to be trying to make a suggestion to help out both sides but both sides are not gonna get any closer together on this one.
     
  19. BPickelTDC

    BPickelTDC Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0

    I do not plan on getting into this hornet's nest except to let everyone know that it is my understanding that NO properties located between Big Redfish Lake and the CR83 access own to the water's edge. There is a platted public beach in front of all of them. To the west of CR83 is another issue entirely as most of those deeds read to the water's edge. I don't know if this matters, I just thought it may help in the highlighted section above. :D
     
  20. Smiling JOe

    Smiling JOe SoWal Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    31,648
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    I believe a small stretch of the beach, adjacent to, and west of Grande Beach, is also platted as public beach.
     

Share This Page