Redfish Village Beach Access

Vagrant just because you think my position (and all those other influential people east of 83) is not as idealistic as yours, it is still ok to have. At least I am the only one admitting that part of my motivation is "not in my backyard". Is that part of yours or are you only selfless and "fighting the good fight". From the way you say it, Anita Page, Richard Fowlkes and Pat Blackshear would all be insiders. Is it possible that somebody has a position that is different than yours and maybe they have as much right as you do to have that position? You are very emphatic and you post like your word is the final word.

Kevin Thompson, would you please answer just one simple question?....

Are you FOR or AGAINST the County allowing RFV to use the 260 Blue Mountain Road residential lot for their "private deeded beach access" / bathroom facilities for 80 condos located about 1000 feet away on the north side of 30A?

I know that a couple of you who are opposed to the private access also have your properties listed for sale. For you guys in particular, why do you care whether there are two bathrooms or five condos on a property near the property which you intend to sell? Just curious.

SJ, you first implied (in a previous post) by the MLS listing that the west property owner felt that he was not suffering in "harm" since he bumped up his asking price (and a couple of other items).

Now, you ask the owners why are they opposed to two bathrooms compared to five condos.

Are you kidding us?????

1. The max capacity for the lot is more like 3 NOT 5 units.

2. Only two bathrooms? Don't forget to add in the 300+ people. I'm sure you just overlooked that trivial detail.

3. Could it be that the owners feel some sense of responsibility to their neighbors? I know this idea appears to be far fetched for some of you out there in this day of develop and flip. But I personally know and have met each and every one of these neighbors. I even asked one of them the same question. His answer was that he basically would not turn his back just because he's selling. His and his neighbors' actions speak louder than their words.

4. Oh yea, why would they oppose it if they did not think the project would hurt the neighborhood? This is not a fun nor cheap past-time.

From Saturday's Walton Sun, page A4...

Residents feeling threatened by private community beach accesses
By Gabriel Tynes gtynes@link.freedom.com

In a series of community meetings held over the past few months, some South Walton citizens have voiced concerns that densely visited, private beach accesses will lead to degradation of the beach and inconvenience for surrounding homeowners.
The accesses in question are proposed by two separate developments north of County Road 30A, each with an interest in marketing private Gulf access to potential investors. Both NatureWalk in Seagrove and Redfish Village in Blue Mountain Beach have purchased parcels of Gulffront property and sent proposals for development to the Walton County Planning Commission.
Last June, NatureWalk, which is being developed by Olson and Associates of NW Florida, purchased the three lots where Seagrove Villas motel has operated since the 1970s. Olson is proposing to tear down the existing buildings and construct a four-story condominium complex with 2,400 square-feet of retail space on the ground fl oor, along with a full service restaurant, two swimming pools and a dune walkover.
According to developers, NatureWalk will shuttle homeowners and visitors from their main property a mile north to use the beach club as a private access.
Redfish Village, which is being developed by Santa Rosa Beach?s New Orchard Group (NOG), recently bought two separate Blue Mountain Road parcels on either side of State Road 83. According to NOG Principal Brad Zeitlin, the proposed Redfi sh Village access will offer a simple dune walkover with private restroom facilities. It will also be served by a shuttle.
Zeitlin, along with codeveloper Steve Bradley, believe the Redfi sh Village access can function within a reasonable density in Blue Mountain Beach, and perhaps even enhance the beach going experience for neighborhood residents and visitors.
?We are proposing a safe and convenient access point for our residents and guests that will take pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffi c and vehicular traffi c off of those feeder roads,? Zeitlin said. ?We thought it would be prudent because the (County Road) 83 access will already be overloaded.?
Zeitlin emphasized the proposal for Redfi sh Village was a small, private beach access facility with no commercial or residential construction ? not a beach club.
?We only have 140 square-feet of construction on the site,? Zeitlin said. ?That?s two, 70 squarefoot bathroom cabanas, a half-moon driveway and a dune walkover. It will also be landscaped in a way to minimize the visual impact.
?Perpendicular access is a serious challenge along the entire beach,? Zeitlin said. ?This has been an extremely polarizing issue and everybody has a stake in it. It comes down to getting everyone who wants to go to the beach down and back without diffi culty.?
At a Dec. 21 discussion regarding the NatureWalk beach club at the South Walton Courthouse Annex, Seagrove resident Tom Hidell distributed a summary of reasons why area homeowners are opposed to current plans. The reasons cited were the development?s usage estimates will exceed the property?s capacity, the plan for shuttle service and traffi c fl ow is not realistic and it fails to address overfl ow parking.
Greg Graham, a planning department engineer, said the private accesses would not be viable without the shuttles, and elements outside of the developments are already causing the traffic problems on CR 30A.
?We?ve looked at traffic analysis for years and know that 30A is over capacity,? Graham said. ?The biggest improvement we could make right now would be to signalize or roundabout the intersection of 395 and 30A.?
Olson and Associates originally submitted a Development Order and PUD application to the planning department in September detailing plans for the beach club. The condos will be served by an underground garage, but the retail outlets will have 11 or fewer parking spaces for the public. A shuttle for the 550-unit NatureWalk will carry passengers to the club and back in 30 minutes.
Residents are concerned that during peak holidays, there is the potential for thousands of people to fl ood the NatureWalk beach club, and many will opt to drive their own vehicles.
Olson and Associates marketing specialist Kristin Anderson said it is her understanding that concerns from the Seagrove community have been addressed and settled.
?We are putting a clause in the contract stating homeowners are at risk of losing their beach club membership if they are in violation of parking regulations.? Anderson said.
At the Dec. 21 meeting, Olson developer Patrick Hodges estimated the value of the club memberships to be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
?It should serve as some sort of incentive not to get in your car to make that trip,? Hodges said.
He proposed that Nature-Walk owners and visitors post decals on their vehicles so they can be identifi ed.
Blue Mountain Beach homeowner Randolph Church, who permanently resides in Atmore, Ala., said he sees the funneling of beach goers to one particular area as problematic.
?You would think if somebody finds an access that is full, they would just go somewhere else,? Church said. ?To me, it sounds like there is going to be a mass of people congregating in and around these residential areas.
?It would be nice to know how many other developments will try to do the



<picture of NatureWalk>
Developers of NatureWalk are proposing the construction of a 20-unit, four story condominium complex and beach club for owners of their 550 lots at the site of Seagrove Villas. A shuttle would make twice-hourly trips to bring NatureWalk residents and guests to the 340-foot Gulf front property. (Provided by Olson and Associates)


<picture of Wheelhouse and Seagrove Villas>
Developers of NatureWalk are proposing the construction of a 20-unit, four story condominium complex and beach club for owners of their 550 lots at the site of Seagrove Villas. A shuttle would make twice-hourly trips to bring NatureWalk residents and guests to the 340-foot Gulf front property. (Gabriel Tynes/The Sun)

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Walton County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting to hear projects, on Thursday, January 11, 2007, beginning at 5:00 p.m. at the South Walton County Courthouse Annex located at 31 Coastal Centre Boulevard, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459. The Board will hear the following item(s): 1. LIGHTING ORDINANCE - An ordinance amending Chapter 5 of the Walton County Land Development Code by adding a new Section 5.09.00 Outdoor Lighting, amending the glossary of the Land Development Code; establishing standards and recommendations for exterior lighting; providing for intent and purpose; applicability; definitions; standards; enforcement and penalties; interpretation, authority; severability; and effective date. 2. REDFISH VILLAGE GATEWAY - Les Porterfield as engineer for applicant is requesting approval of a major development consisting of a restroom and pavilion on 0.63 ? acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Jason Bryan. This site is located three lots west of CR 83 and Blue Mountain Road intersection, south of Blue Mountain Road. 3. OSPREY BAY RETREAT F/K/ A AZAR VILLAGE - Norman Azar and Jenkins, Stanford and Associates, Inc. as the engineer of record are requesting approval of a major development consisting of 24 units on 4.64 ? acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Jason Bryan. This site is located northwest of the intersection of Chat Holly Road and Osprey Lane. 4. ABACOS II - Dean Burgis of Emerald Coast Associates, Inc. as engineer of record request approval on a major development consisting a 69,528 sf mixed use building to include 9,155 sf of retail and 19 condominiums of 1.63 acres with future land use designation of Village Mixed Use. This site is located at the northeast corner of CR 393 and CR30A. 5. ALAQUA LANDING A/K/A PINEY POINT ESTATES - Dean Burgis, P.E., of Emerald Coast Associates, Inc. as engineer of record is requesting approval of a major development consisting of 76 single family lots on 38.45 ? acres with a future land use designation of Rural Village. This site is located on the north side of Piney Point Road west of CR 83A, West (West Bay Loop Road). 6. NATURE WALK BEACH CLUB PUD - Seagrove at the Beach, LLC and Kimley-Horn Engineering are requesting approval of a major development consisting of 2 buildings totaling 19,858 square feet to include 2,400 sf of retail, 21 condominiums and beach club on 1.21 ? acres with future land use designation of NPA/Residential Preservation. This site is located at 3031 E County Hwy. 30-A, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459. 7. LSA 07-00.03 - Bonezzi Development Company is requesting a text amendment to the Walton County Comprehensive Plan to allow the use of proportionate fair share payments for developments of regional impact, to be transmitted in conjunction with a proposed development of regional impact identified as Blackstone DRI. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding these items either to approve, approve with conditions or to deny. Any agenda item that is tabled will be scheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting and will not go forward to the Board of County Commissioners until the Planning commission makes a recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. in the Walton County Courthouse Annex located at DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 to review and consider the Planning Commission's recommendations on projects that are not continued, tabled or advertised as a special meeting. In accordance with Section 286.26, Florida Statues, whenever any board or commissioner of any state agency or authority, or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision, which has scheduled a meeting at which official acts are to be taken receives, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, a written request by a physically handicapped person to attend the meeting, directed to the chairperson or director of such board, commission, agency, or authority, such chairperson or director shall provide a manner by which such person may attend the meeting at its scheduled site or reschedule the meeting to a site which would be accessible to such person. In accordance with Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, all persons are advised that, if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board, agency, or commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Please be advised accordingly. 2tc: Dec. 28, 2006; Jan. 4, 2007 934F

Here it is. It did make it on the list. How did they get it moved from Feb. to Jan. "FAST TRACK" they say.

Points of clarification: I said that he doesn't give the impression of his property suffering, financially when he raises the price since during the same time when he says that his value will decrease. Personally, I think his value would suffer. He may have other reasons for raising the price -- maybe it was underpriced. Not my call. The notes in the listing, which he is privy to and able to request them to be changed, do not reflect what he is preaching to the developer.

I seem to recall my question being not so much a comparison, but I general why did they care since they were not planning to have any interest in the property after the sale. I think you answered that question.

By the way, I don't set the rules for density. That property is zoned at a max of 8 units per acre and although I have seen two different area sizes for that lot, I seem to recall the lesser of the two providing for 5 units. The County Property Appraisers Records show the property being .756 acres. If you go by that number, the property would legally be able to have 6 units on it. Logistically, that would be left to an engineer to determine how they fit onto the property. Maybe your number of 3 units would seem more normal, but it isn't up to you and me to decide that number.

In regards to your last question, I have no idea why people do what they do. Not all of us on the same page. Perhaps you know why, and maybe there are hidden reasons for the opposition of which you are not aware. For all I know, maybe they both reserved a unit in Big Redfish. I doubt it, but I don't know.

SJ, you first implied (in a previous post) by the MLS listing that the west property owner felt that he was not suffering in "harm" since he bumped up his asking price (and a couple of other items).

Now, you ask the owners why are they opposed to two bathrooms compared to five condos.

Are you kidding us?????

1. The max capacity for the lot is more like 3 NOT 5 units.

2. Only two bathrooms? Don't forget to add in the 300+ people. I'm sure you just overlooked that trivial detail.

3. Could it be that the owners feel some sense of responsibility to their neighbors? I know this idea appears to be far fetched for some of you out there in this day of develop and flip. But I personally know and have met each and every one of these neighbors. I even asked one of them the same question. His answer was that he basically would not turn his back just because he's selling. His and his neighbors' actions speak louder than their words.

4. Oh yea, why would they oppose it if they did not think the project would hurt the neighborhood? This is not a fun nor cheap past-time.

This is a pretty confusing thread. I'm definately against Redfish and/or Nature Walk buying a lot for use as a private beach access but, haven't Watersound, Watercolor and Seacrest essentially done the same thing for their residents? I may be wrong but when you consider the total number of people expected to use these private beach accesses at full capacity compared to the actual beachfront available they may be worse than Redfish. The only difference I see is that the Redfish and Nature Walk accesses are not directly connected to their primary development. However, once Watersound North is completed this may be true for them as well.

This is a pretty confusing thread. I'm definately against Redfish and/or Nature Walk buying a lot for use as a private beach access but, haven't Watersound, Watercolor and Seacrest essentially done the same thing for their residents? I may be wrong but when you consider the total number of people expected to use these private beach accesses at full capacity compared to the actual beachfront available they may be worse than Redfish. The only difference I see is that the Redfish and Nature Walk accesses are not directly connected to their primary development. However, once Watersound North is completed this may be true for them as well.

I hear you about WaterSound North, but it is different because the property surrounding the WaterSound Beach Club is part of the development, same for WaterColor. These other proposed private clubs and accesses are surrounded by single family residences, which are not part of the developments funneling its owners and guests through the private cattle gates.

Kevin Thompson, would you please answer just one simple question?....

Are you FOR or AGAINST the County allowing RFV to use the 260 Blue Mountain Road residential lot for their "private deeded beach access" / bathroom facilities for 80 condos located about 1000 feet away on the north side of 30A?

Have you not been reading all the posts? Go back and read, and you should find KevinThompson's answer to your question in several of his posts.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Walton County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting to hear projects, on Thursday, January 11, 2007, beginning at 5:00 p.m. at the South Walton County Courthouse Annex located at 31 Coastal Centre Boulevard, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459. The Board will hear the following item(s): 1. LIGHTING ORDINANCE - An ordinance amending Chapter 5 of the Walton County Land Development Code by adding a new Section 5.09.00 Outdoor Lighting, amending the glossary of the Land Development Code; establishing standards and recommendations for exterior lighting; providing for intent and purpose; applicability; definitions; standards; enforcement and penalties; interpretation, authority; severability; and effective date. 2. REDFISH VILLAGE GATEWAY - Les Porterfield as engineer for applicant is requesting approval of a major development consisting of a restroom and pavilion on 0.63 ? acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Jason Bryan. This site is located three lots west of CR 83 and Blue Mountain Road intersection, south of Blue Mountain Road. 3. OSPREY BAY RETREAT F/K/ A AZAR VILLAGE - Norman Azar and Jenkins, Stanford and Associates, Inc. as the engineer of record are requesting approval of a major development consisting of 24 units on 4.64 ? acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Jason Bryan. This site is located northwest of the intersection of Chat Holly Road and Osprey Lane. 4. ABACOS II - Dean Burgis of Emerald Coast Associates, Inc. as engineer of record request approval on a major development consisting a 69,528 sf mixed use building to include 9,155 sf of retail and 19 condominiums of 1.63 acres with future land use designation of Village Mixed Use. This site is located at the northeast corner of CR 393 and CR30A. 5. ALAQUA LANDING A/K/A PINEY POINT ESTATES - Dean Burgis, P.E., of Emerald Coast Associates, Inc. as engineer of record is requesting approval of a major development consisting of 76 single family lots on 38.45 ? acres with a future land use designation of Rural Village. This site is located on the north side of Piney Point Road west of CR 83A, West (West Bay Loop Road). 6. NATURE WALK BEACH CLUB PUD - Seagrove at the Beach, LLC and Kimley-Horn Engineering are requesting approval of a major development consisting of 2 buildings totaling 19,858 square feet to include 2,400 sf of retail, 21 condominiums and beach club on 1.21 ? acres with future land use designation of NPA/Residential Preservation. This site is located at 3031 E County Hwy. 30-A, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459. 7. LSA 07-00.03 - Bonezzi Development Company is requesting a text amendment to the Walton County Comprehensive Plan to allow the use of proportionate fair share payments for developments of regional impact, to be transmitted in conjunction with a proposed development of regional impact identified as Blackstone DRI. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding these items either to approve, approve with conditions or to deny. Any agenda item that is tabled will be scheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting and will not go forward to the Board of County Commissioners until the Planning commission makes a recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. in the Walton County Courthouse Annex located at DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 to review and consider the Planning Commission's recommendations on projects that are not continued, tabled or advertised as a special meeting. In accordance with Section 286.26, Florida Statues, whenever any board or commissioner of any state agency or authority, or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision, which has scheduled a meeting at which official acts are to be taken receives, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, a written request by a physically handicapped person to attend the meeting, directed to the chairperson or director of such board, commission, agency, or authority, such chairperson or director shall provide a manner by which such person may attend the meeting at its scheduled site or reschedule the meeting to a site which would be accessible to such person. In accordance with Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, all persons are advised that, if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board, agency, or commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Please be advised accordingly. 2tc: Dec. 28, 2006; Jan. 4, 2007 934F

Here it is. It did make it on the list. How did they get it moved from Feb. to Jan. "FAST TRACK" they say.

I don't know but you forgot to highlight the similar private club/access at Montgomery St in Seagrove, which is also on the agenda. I keep seeing you guys fighting for only your little space. The two agenda are closely related. It seems to me that you could have more fighting power against the developers if you joined together in your efforts. I wonder if you will stay around the meeting for item number 6 on the agenda. I know you guys are anxious to head over to that Al Gore movie in Gulf Place so you probably won't stick around. :funn:

"6. NATURE WALK BEACH CLUB PUD - Seagrove at the Beach, LLC and Kimley-Horn Engineering are requesting approval of a major development consisting of 2 buildings totaling 19,858 square feet to include 2,400 sf of retail, 21 condominiums and beach club on 1.21 ? acres with future land use designation of NPA/Residential Preservation. This site is located at 3031 E County Hwy. 30-A, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459."

I don't know but you forgot to highlight the similar private club/access at Montgomery St in Seagrove, which is also on the agenda. I keep seeing you guys fighting for only your little space. The two agenda are closely related. It seems to me that you could have more fighting power against the developers if you joined together in your efforts. I wonder if you will stay around the meeting for item number 6 on the agenda. I know you guys are anxious to head over to that Al Gore movie in Gulf Place so you probably won't stick around. :funn:

"6. NATURE WALK BEACH CLUB PUD - Seagrove at the Beach, LLC and Kimley-Horn Engineering are requesting approval of a major development consisting of 2 buildings totaling 19,858 square feet to include 2,400 sf of retail, 21 condominiums and beach club on 1.21 ? acres with future land use designation of NPA/Residential Preservation. This site is located at 3031 E County Hwy. 30-A, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459."

Last time I checked this was the RFV thread-SJ. I have been told many times to stay on the subject did not want to make you and KT mad.

....Personally, I think his value would suffer.

Let's agree to leave it at that then.

By the way, I don't set the rules for density. That property is zoned at a max of 8 units per acre and although I have seen two different area sizes for that lot, I seem to recall the lesser of the two providing for 5 units. The County Property Appraisers Records show the property being .756 acres. If you go by that number, the property would legally be able to have 6 units on it. Logistically, that would be left to an engineer to determine how they fit onto the property. Maybe your number of 3 units would seem more normal, but it isn't up to you and me to decide that number.

I don't set the rules for density either. The density usage rules for gulf front properties that include the "sandy" part of the beach are different from what you and I and most people would think. It is just another step in the County's attempt to erode private property rights in my opinion (another subject for another thread).

That is, the County does not allow the "sandy" part of a gulf front property to be counted towards density calculations. When you back out that part for the 260 Blue Mtn Rd lot, you're left with around .45 acres or only 3 structures (at 8 units per acre). I understand they do allow "some" credit for the "sandy" part of the property so you might get one extra structure.

Let's agree that only 3 to 4 structures max can be built. The previous owner, BJ Development, only advertised 3 homes before they sold it to RFV. I am sure there was a reason. Oh yea, each unit would have adequate parking!

In regards to your last question, I have no idea why people do what they do. Not all of us on the same page. Perhaps you know why, and maybe there are hidden reasons for the opposition of which you are not aware. For all I know, maybe they both reserved a unit in Big Redfish. I doubt it, but I don't know.

Hmmmm.... you made me think a little about that one. If any of the adjacent owners have contracts with RFV and want to see them fail as result, they have kept it a secret from me. In addition, wouldn't RFV expose them as such if the situation existed? Wouldn't they know who owns contracts with them?

It seems like you see my side of the situation but then again you seem to continually throw darts at it. Why?

Have you not been reading all the posts? Go back and read, and you should find KevinThompson's answer to your question in several of his posts.

The above is regarding my earlier question to KT: "...FOR or AGAINST..."

SJ, I did re-read his posts. I'm still a little confused although he appears to be mostly for it. Please let KT clear it up for us.

BMBV-I think KT is busy this week..

Will you be at the meeting?

BMBV-So we are all clear tell us what is going to happen Thursday night. Will they look at the same plans that they did for Lot 1 that was not zoned for this type of development?9Not sure if they got this far last time) Do we have a typo in the legal listing from the paper because I thought there would be 2 restrooms? Will they have handicap parking and also provide enough restrooms for, at peak 300 plus people, which is a conservative number BTW for friends and family? Will they provide parking on-site? If so how many do you have to have for this size of development? It is down the road so you probably would not want to "experience" a trolley with your younger babies (car seat, luggage and all that stuff) so you would need to drive the van to the PrivateBA and park.

I was not part of the first Lot that Redfish Village was denied and told to stop advertising on May 5, 2006. because the lot was not properly zoned for this project. Will the same folks be hearing the same song tomorrow? Because I think they are the same folks who wrote the Dear Mr. Brad Zeitlin letter.

SJ, is everything OK? Just a little concerned that you haven't replied to my post #337 regarding

the max # of structures that would be allowed on the 260 Blue Mountain Road lot (point being only 3 to 4 as opposed to the 6 you state)

and your conspiracy theory that the adjacent owners have some deep, dark, hidden ulterior motive for opposing the private access for 80 condos directly adjacent to their homes other than the obvious reasons.

These are items you brought up.

Kevin Thompson, once more, are you for or against the private deeded access? Thanks.

SJ, is everything OK? Just a little concerned that you haven't replied to my post #337 regarding

the max # of structures that would be allowed on the 260 Blue Mountain Road lot (point being only 3 to 4 as opposed to the 6 you state)

and your conspiracy theory that the adjacent owners have some deep, dark, hidden ulterior motive for opposing the private access for 80 condos directly adjacent to their homes other than the obvious reasons.

These are items you brought up.

He may be hiding as "Drunkkenartist"! Look in lounge!!!

SJ, is everything OK? Just a little concerned that you haven't replied to my post #337 regarding

the max # of structures that would be allowed on the 260 Blue Mountain Road lot (point being only 3 to 4 as opposed to the 6 you state)

and your conspiracy theory that the adjacent owners have some deep, dark, hidden ulterior motive for opposing the private access for 80 condos directly adjacent to their homes other than the obvious reasons.

These are items you brought up.

Why do I need to respond to every post? I am not your puppet. You already posted post number 337. We don't need to keep this on a freaking loop like it has been.

3 units, 5 units, or 6 units, it doesn't matter. I was simply pointing out to other posters, some whom think it is 8 units, that it was less. The information regarding not using the beach property to gain your density is news to me. I had not heard that before. What matters is that it is not compatible for the use of 80 units.

I thought you guys were fighting the private access, but it seems that you are just fighting anyone who will get into a ring with you.

Vagrant I have been in Michigan visiting Mom who is getting up in her years. I really didn't have time to catch up on this and it seems I did not miss much. It sounds like you are asking me if I am for or against which I do not understand why, I have answered that I am for it and told you why and admitted being a little selfish although I think the idea is good. Long travel so I will not have the energy to stay up and battle with you. Good night and good luck.

edroedrog,

I believe the planning department is staying the course (one they illogicaly seem to have chosen from the beginning). In other words they have already approved the project internally. The planning commission meeting tomorrow is probably already a done deal (a very very bad deal for everyone in South Walton County except the developer and the tax collector).

I can not believe that the planning department believes the use of this residential property is compatible with the existing neighborhood as required by the infill zoning requirements.

However, we all know that George Ralph Miller (RFV attorney) and his 20 years as the Walton County Commissioner has nothing to do with the planning department rubber stamping this application, right?

This may not be a direct conflict of interest on his part, but it stinks to high heaven when one looks at the total picture and the history of this project in particular.

This will be a key turning point for the future development of South Walton County.

I have coined the new meaning for B&B's in South Walton.....
"Build'em & Bus'em.

I don't expect the Planning Dpt to reject this project. I have rarely seen them reject any project. They shove it up to the County Commissioners (BCC) and let them be the bearer of bad news if there is any to be delivered. The Planning Dpt doesn't like to be yelled at by irate developers or builders. I forsee a bit of audience reaction tomorrow, but my guess is that it is already a done deal for them. They really don't care about input from the public -- they only listen a little bit because they are required to hear public comments. The only way this project could meet any resistance is if the crowd was lined up to the doors of the court house annex and all were objecting. That is the only way the BCC will listen too.

Why do I need to respond to every post? I am not your puppet. You already posted post number 337. We don't need to keep this on a freaking loop like it has been.

3 units, 5 units, or 6 units, it doesn't matter. I was simply pointing out to other posters, some whom think it is 8 units, that it was less. The information regarding not using the beach property to gain your density is news to me. I had not heard that before. What matters is that it is not compatible for the use of 80 units.

I thought you guys were fighting the private access, but it seems that you are just fighting anyone who will get into a ring with you.

SJ, you and I always seem to get to this point regardless of the subject matter.

I did not think our dialog was finished. Truthfully, I don't appreciate your jab and run tactics, expecially the parts where you were casting a dark shadow on the motivations of my neighbors with no evidence to back it up.

Regarding density, I thought you were inferring (and others may also falsely assume from your post) that 6 units might be a heavy usage of the lot just as the RFV access would be. In other words, one might assume the usage of the lot would not be any worse off with 6 condos than as an access for RFV. I was countering with the fact that the total number of units would be more like 3, possibly 4. That's why I brought that up.

And yes, your "smarty" little statement where you said "By the way, I don't set the rules for density" did bug me a little implying that you don't make the rules but you know the rules when in fact there are some nuances.

I think we agree at least on one thing here where you said....
"What matters is that it is not compatible for the use of 80 units. ":clap_1:

One other thing that really bothers me is your last statement...
"I thought you guys were fighting the private access, but it seems that you are just fighting anyone who will get into a ring with you."

SJ, I personally am not fighting anyone who will get in the ring; that's your opinion. If you recall, I was growing tired of the way this thread was progressing and tried to get it back on track. This matter is too serious to simply just be bickering with you.

SJ, I hope you by now you understand that I will not allow something I feel inappropriate to go unchallenged. I know you're are not use to that here on this message board. That's one of the reasons I said I felt you were throwing darts. Shouldn't that have received a reply, at least? Maybe something like "Hey BMBV, that's not true" or "BMBV, eat shht and die" or something. Sorry you feel like a my puppet. Wait a minute, I hear a song in the back of my mind...."like a puppet on a string"....never mind.

Anyway, hopefully you'll respect me in the morning.

Oh yea, regarding your "not needing to respond to every post": When I asked Kevin Thompson to clarify his position, you had to jump in and tell me to re-read his posts. I didn't ask you nor do I think KT needs you to answer questions directed at him. If you must answer for him, why not just give me the answer instead of telling me to re-read all of his posts?

I'll say it again, thanks (at least) for your position about the NON-compatibility of the RFV's beach access lot proposal. Response not expected.

SJ, you and I always seem to get to this point regardless of the subject matter.

I did not think our dialog was finished. Truthfully, I don't appreciate your jab and run tactics, expecially the parts where you were casting a dark shadow on the motivations of my neighbors with no evidence to back it up.

Obviously, you failed to read the part about me not knowing the motivations of others, in the post of dark shadow. Go back and reread it.

Regarding density, I thought you were inferring (and others may also falsely assume from your post) that 6 units might be a heavy usage of the lot just as the RFV access would be. In other words, one might assume the usage of the lot would not be any worse off with 6 condos than as an access for RFV. I was countering with the fact that the total number of units would be more like 3, possibly 4. That's why I brought that up.

So be it. I was unaware of this information of not using part of the land for density. That is why I didn't reply. I have not confirmed what you state, so I will not deny it either. I let it stand as is. Now you want me to do what with that information? You want a reply and I don't have one for you, but you cannot take that for a reply.

And yes, your "smarty" little statement where you said "By the way, I don't set the rules for density" did bug me a little implying that you don't make the rules but you know the rules when in fact there are some nuances.

I didn't imply that. What I said in summary was that the County decides the density, not you and not me.

I think we agree at least on one thing here where you said....
"What matters is that it is not compatible for the use of 80 units. ":clap_1:

I agree. I think that may be the only thing that you and I agree on, and that non-compatibility is what matters. It doesn't matter which one of us can pee the fartherst. I am out of pee. :funn:No more peeing for me.

One other thing that really bothers me is your last statement...
"I thought you guys were fighting the private access, but it seems that you are just fighting anyone who will get into a ring with you."

SJ, I personally am not fighting anyone who will get in the ring; that's your opinion. If you recall, I was growing tired of the way this thread was progressing and tried to get it back on track. This matter is too serious to simply just be bickering with you.

SJ, I hope you by now you understand that I will not allow something I feel inappropriate to go unchallenged. I know you're are not use to that here on this message board. That's one of the reasons I said I felt you were throwing darts. Shouldn't that have received a reply, at least? Maybe something like "Hey BMBV, that's not true" or "BMBV, eat shht and die" or something. Sorry you feel like a my puppet. Wait a minute, I hear a song in the back of my mind...."like a puppet on a string"....never mind.

Anyway, hopefully you'll respect me in the morning.

Oh yea, regarding your "not needing to respond to every post": When I asked Kevin Thompson to clarify his position, you had to jump in and tell me to re-read his posts. I didn't ask you nor do I think KT needs you to answer questions directed at him. If you must answer for him, why not just give me the answer instead of telling me to re-read all of his posts?

I'll say it again, thanks (at least) for your position about the NON-compatibility of the RFV's beach access lot proposal. Response not expected.

As for answering questions, I can think of three users on this thread who have avoided many questions repeatedly. I may not reply to every post, but I try to answer questions directed toward me.

Vagrant I have been in Michigan visiting Mom who is getting up in her years.

I understand. I have one too.

I really didn't have time to catch up on this and it seems I did not miss much. It sounds like you are asking me if I am for or against which I do not understand why, I have answered that I am for it and told you why and admitted being a little selfish although I think the idea is good.

After re-reading my re-reads, I see where I misinterpreted one of your posts. You are right and I am wrong. Yes, you have been consistantly "selfish" as you describe with your position regarding RFV. You believe RFV is entitled to "an" access and that it's better for it to be on the west side.

You have made that very clear. Sorry for asking you the question where you have repeatedly said in the past that your motivations are "selfish". Nice to know I have an upfront, consistant but "selfish" neighbor down the road.

Long travel so I will not have the energy to stay up and battle with you. Good night and good luck.

Be safe. Not looking for a battle, just what's right.

One more question...since you seem to be so involved and concerned with your neighborhood, are you a member of the BMBCA?

..... It doesn't matter which one of us can pee the fartherst. I am out of pee. :funn:No more peeing for me.

Don't forget to wash your hands. I just did. And I feel better after our little exchange.

As for answering questions, I can think of three users on this thread who have avoided many questions repeatedly. I may not reply to every post, but I try to answer questions directed toward me.

I can't speak for the motivation of others but I understand what you're implying.

Night night.

Gentlemen,

Enough is enough...

...Similing Joe, John R, KT, and others: you have clearly shown that edroedrog has an agenda. I may not be in complete alignment with edroedrog's motivations. Let's say, as an exercise, that edroedrog just wants to see RFV fail for whatever reason...

...Would that change the core matter of this thread?...

...You guys keep throwing knives at each other while the real matter just gets ignored....

I challenge each and every one of you to post your CONCISE...

BMBV, was this post for real? You seem to have taken the pulpit mysteriously vacated by BMBW248, and have been banging out the same rhetoric you wanted to see stopped. what gives? we all get it.

I mentioned this before to walker or edrowhatever, that you guys may be chasing away potential supporters with all the finger pointing, hollow 'facts', dripping sarcasm, etc. and now, you're all but admitting defeat. i'm confused. all this anger over a foregone conclusion? get your ass up there and fight this thing. good luck.