Redfish Village Beach Access

Here's a brief summary of events to date for those "just joining in":

1. 10/18/2004: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #1, east of the 83 access, for $2,600,000.

2. 2/14/2005: Almost 4 months later, they purchased the main property on 30A, for $21,587,500.

3. 8/31/2006: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #2, west of the 83 beach access, for $5,045,000.

RFV ran into stiff opposition from the neighbors, including BMBCA, regarding building bathrooms and walkover on bathroom lot #1. In an effort to appease the neighbors, RFV then proposed to only build bathrooms on the lot. The county still would not grant them a permit.

There are 4 public access in close proximity to bathroom lot #1 including the 83 public access. The 83 public access is scheduled to have bathrooms built in about a year, according to TDC. Access (or no lack of) to the beach is therefore not an issue for RFV.

At the public community meeting this past November, RFV (Brad Zeitlen) denied that they were turned down for approval on bathroom lot #1. When asked why RFV decided to spend over 5 million dollars for bathroom lot #2 if they were supposedly not turned down for lot #1, their attorney said, "Zoning."

RFV initially tried to slide the project through as a minor development order. This type of classification would then NOT involve the public or the county commissioners....only the planning commission.

But bathroom lot #2 is zoned "infill". The Walton County land use code clearly states that

1. any development on an infill zoned property, must be handled as a major development order which requires public notification and input as well as a vote from the County Commissioners (scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 23rd in Defuniak Springs).

2. that any development be COMPATIBLE with the existing neighborhood.

RFV pulled the (minor development order) agenda from a previous county commissioners' meeting because they knew they would be forced to follow the rules regarding infill zoning (public process). So now they are addressing item 1 above.

Item 2 is the one that is the main issue AND that has been completely ignored by the Walton County Planning Commission based on their approval, against their own rules. Allowing access for over 300 people (80 remotely located condos that are part of a commercial development) on a single residential lot is simply not compatible.

To me (and many others including the attorney for the neghborhood), it's very clear that per item 2, the County Commissioners should not approve this project because there is no compatibility, plain and simple. This is the core issue. Everything else is what it is ;-) .

Once again Vagrant defines the "core issue". For those people that Vagrant is educating, let it be known that many people disagree with Vagrant who LIVE in Blue Mountain and that he is not speaking for all of us. He does not live in Blue Mountain, doesn't even live in South Walton County but is the expert on everything related to this issue. We applaud the developer for moving to a lot with better "zoning" than the first lot. I am sure he will now write another entire page to respond.

Here's a brief summary of events to date for those "just joining in":

1. 10/18/2004: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #1, east of the 83 access, for $2,600,000.

2. 2/14/2005: Almost 4 months later, they purchased the main property on 30A, for $21,587,500.

3. 8/31/2006: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #2, west of the 83 beach access, for $5,045,000.

RFV ran into stiff opposition from the neighbors, including BMBCA, regarding building bathrooms and walkover on bathroom lot #1. In an effort to appease the neighbors, RFV then proposed to only build bathrooms on the lot. The county still would not grant them a permit.

There are 4 public access in close proximity to bathroom lot #1 including the 83 public access. The 83 public access is scheduled to have bathrooms built in about a year, according to TDC. Access (or no lack of) to the beach is therefore not an issue for RFV.

At the public community meeting this past November, RFV (Brad Zeitlen) denied that they were turned down for approval on bathroom lot #1. When asked why RFV decided to spend over 5 million dollars for bathroom lot #2 if they were supposedly not turned down for lot #1, their attorney said, "Zoning."

RFV initially tried to slide the project through as a minor development order. This type of classification would then NOT involve the public or the county commissioners....only the planning commission.

But bathroom lot #2 is zoned "infill". The Walton County land use code clearly states that

1. any development on an infill zoned property, must be handled as a major development order which requires public notification and input as well as a vote from the County Commissioners (scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 23rd in Defuniak Springs).

2. that any development be COMPATIBLE with the existing neighborhood.

RFV pulled the (minor development order) agenda from a previous county commissioners' meeting because they knew they would be forced to follow the rules regarding infill zoning (public process). So now they are addressing item 1 above.

Item 2 is the one that is the main issue AND that has been completely ignored by the Walton County Planning Commission based on their approval, against their own rules. Allowing access for over 300 people (80 remotely located condos that are part of a commercial development) on a single residential lot is simply not compatible.

To me (and many others including the attorney for the neghborhood), it's very clear that per item 2, the County Commissioners should not approve this project because there is no compatibility, plain and simple. This is the core issue. Everything else is what it is ;-) .

BMBV -- Thanks for attempting to help clarify some things.

For the record I don't live in BMB, but appears Vagrant does. Sounds like the 'many people' is you. Not sure why you are so concerned on Vagrant's reasoning on being against this. If it is denied, it's not going back to your side of the street b/c it appears to be a fact, lot 1 was denied. What's strange is you're not fighting alongside Vagrant to get it pushed out of the entire area. Strange...

Once again Vagrant defines the "core issue". For those people that Vagrant is educating, let it be known that many people disagree with Vagrant who LIVE in Blue Mountain and that he is not speaking for all of us. He does not live in Blue Mountain, doesn't even live in South Walton County but is the expert on everything related to this issue. We applaud the developer for moving to a lot with better "zoning" than the first lot. I am sure he will now write another entire page to respond.

For the record I don't live in BMB, but appears Vagrant does. Sounds like the 'many people' is you. Not sure why you are so concerned on Vagrant's reasoning on being against this. If it is denied, it's not going back to your side of the street b/c it appears to be a fact, lot 1 was denied. What's strange is you're not fighting alongside Vagrant to get it pushed out of the entire area. Strange...

Vagrant has already said he doesn not live in Blue Mountain he doesn't even live in the County. Please have your facts straight before you post. There are enough people posting incorrect information as if it is fact. The reason I am am not fighting it because I am for it. If it does not happen then you will have all the people walking, biking and driving down the street in front of my house. I like this idea I have said it before.

What was strange is that when it was going to be on Lot 1 nobody on the west side including Vagrant ever said a word only the people on the east side. And you really need to check your facts on Lot 1 before you believe Vagrant or Edroe because I said it before there was never a denial for what they were going to do on Lot 1. I won't fight this battle again with Edroe and Vagrant but I will at least tell you that they are wrong.

Doesn't vagrant own property in BMB? If so, I think he has every right to have an opinion. On the lot 1 being denied, it is a fact.

Vagrant has already said he doesn not live in Blue Mountain he doesn't even live in the County. Please have your facts straight before you post. There are enough people posting incorrect information as if it is fact. The reason I am am not fighting it because I am for it. If it does not happen then you will have all the people walking, biking and driving down the street in front of my house. I like this idea I have said it before.

What was strange is that when it was going to be on Lot 1 nobody on the west side including Vagrant ever said a word only the people on the east side. And you really need to check your facts on Lot 1 before you believe Vagrant or Edroe because I said it before there was never a denial for what they were going to do on Lot 1. I won't fight this battle again with Edroe and Vagrant but I will at least tell you that they are wrong.

Doesn't vagrant own property in BMB? If so, I think he has every right to have an opinion. On the lot 1 being denied, it is a fact.

Great another oracle of the truth. Thank you ATM.:clap_1:

Did you hear otherwise? I'm not hearing this, I've seen this. It is fact and in writing.

Great another oracle of the truth. Thank you ATM.:clap_1:

I don't live in BMB or own property there but I know the developers personally and consider them friends. So for that reason, I hope their request is approved. Surely friendship is as important a reason as not wanting someone walking by your property is for opposing it.

For the record I don't live in BMB, but appears Vagrant does. Sounds like the 'many people' is you. Not sure why you are so concerned on Vagrant's reasoning on being against this. If it is denied, it's not going back to your side of the street b/c it appears to be a fact, lot 1 was denied. What's strange is you're not fighting alongside Vagrant to get it pushed out of the entire area. Strange...

Strange, indeed.


BTW, where is BMBCA when you need them? They're all over the place when you don't. I still haven't heard anyone state what their "new found" position is (and why). PLEASE, with around 200 members belonging to this activist organization, can't just one insider shed some light as to their NEW FOUND silence on a local issue as important as this?

How about SWCC?

Strange, indeed.


BTW, where is BMBCA when you need them? They're all over the place when you don't. I still haven't heard anyone state what their "new found" position is (and why). PLEASE, with around 200 members belonging to this activist organization, can't just one insider shed some light as to their NEW FOUND silence on a local issue as important as this?

How about SWCC?

Didn't you post on #311 the BMBCA comments about their position? Vagrant are you being coy or just trying to make some more friends? What possible reason could you have to post their position and then ask what it is?

And I have answered the question why it's not strange that I am not fighting along side you. It's the same reason you didn't fight alongside us when they were trying to do this in our residential preservation neighborhood next to our homes. I think everybody has said their position many times here not sure why you are still so confused. I am sure you will write me a nasty page long reason though.

You guys make me think of a Thomas Jefferson quote:
"If ouir house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Lewis, Jr, May 9, 1798.

You guys make me think of a Thomas Jefferson quote:
"If ouir house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Lewis, Jr, May 9, 1798.

And that's exactly what I and some others are trying do.

Some imply that since I was not aware of the "first fire", that I should simply ignore the "second fire". What a load!

Notice how nobody comments about BMBCA and SWCC? I know for certain that director(s) of BMBCA monitor this message board.

SJ, as an activist yourself, is there anything you know about their current position that you can share since they don't seem to have the backbone to speak up (when you want them to)?

BTW, find the warranty deed yet?;-)

And that's exactly what I and some others are trying do.

Some imply that since I was not aware of the "first fire", that I should simply ignore the "second fire". What a load!

Notice how nobody comments about BMBCA and SWCC? I know for certain that director(s) of BMBCA monitor this message board.

SJ, as an activist yourself, is there anything you know about their current position that you can share since they don't seem to have the backbone to speak up (when you want them to)?

BTW, find the warranty deed yet?;-)

I have not researched the BMBCA nor the SWCC for their lack of activity for lot #2. If what you said is correct about several of their leading members living in the area east of the 83 access (lot #1 area), I would think that they too, are being selfish and know what the result will be if no private access is approved -- more foot traffic on their streets. I do know that some of thier members were at the meeting for the NatureWalk Private Beach Club issue. I am not a member of either of those organizations so I don't know their reasons. Have you checked the SWCC's website to look for info.

Warranty Deed? I wasn't looking for one. You know where the Clerk of Court's website and office is located, so if you need to look something up, they can assist you. If you are referring to the Warranty Deed for the Beach in front of the subdivison between Big Redfish Lake and the 83 Access, I am still waiting on you to show me the documents that show who owns that beach, and unless you can show me who owns it, I will consider it as publicly owned. ;-) I think Kevin Thompson is correct about at least one thing. You seem to give us the answer, then ask the question and that is rather frustrating like you are not reading our comments. The information you are giving seems to be in a continuous loop. I feel like I waste my time trying to answer your questions because you ask the same question later after I reply. If you have something to share with us, please do so, but this isn't Jeopardy, so please don't give your answer in the form of a question. It gets rather confusing as to what you are trying to find out or tell us.

I have not researched the BMBCA nor the SWCC for their lack of activity for lot #2. If what you said is correct about several of their leading members living in the area east of the 83 access (lot #1 area), I would think that they too, are being selfish and know what the result will be if no private access is approved -- more foot traffic on their streets. I do know that some of their members were at the meeting for the NatureWalk Private Beach Club issue. I am not a member of either of those organizations so I don't know their reasons. Have you checked the SWCC's website to look for info.

I just did look them up and went on http://www.southwaltoncc.org and found absolutely nothing. Not just nothing about RFV...nothing of any value, period. See for yourself. A search on Google for BMBCA or Blue Mountain Beach Community Association yields no website for BMBCA.

Warranty Deed? I wasn't looking for one. You know where the Clerk of Court's website and office is located, so if you need to look something up, they can assist you. If you are referring to the Warranty Deed for the Beach in front of the subdivison between Big Redfish Lake and the 83 Access, I am still waiting on you to show me the documents that show who owns that beach, and unless you can show me who owns it, I will consider it as publicly owned. ;-)

Me too..;-).

You're the one that claimed the county owned it. How about I say, I think it's not public, and you say you think it's not private. We'll settle this later :roll: . I just didn't want to see you walk away from post #394 where you assumed because the property lines stop at the dunes that the beach must then belong to the county by default...just trying to help prevent the dissimination of "possible" false info, that's all.

I think Kevin Thompson is correct about at least one thing. You seem to give us the answer, then ask the question and that is rather frustrating like you are not reading our comments. The information you are giving seems to be in a continuous loop. I feel like I waste my time trying to answer your questions because you ask the same question later after I reply. If you have something to share with us, please do so, but this isn't Jeopardy, so please don't give your answer in the form of a question. It gets rather confusing as to what you are trying to find out or tell us.

If you're talking private vs. public, point is again, one should not make assumptions (and present as fact) that one can not validate.

So for now, how about we both just agree to "opine" our positions regarding the private/public property issue. OK with you?

You're the one that claimed the county owned it. How about I say, I think it's not public, and you say you think it's not private. We'll settle this later :roll: . I just didn't want to see you walk away from post #394 where you assumed because the property lines stop at the dunes that the beach must then belong to the county by default...just trying to help prevent the dissimination of "possible" false info, that's all.

If you're talking private vs. public, point is again, one should not make assumptions (and present as fact) that one can not validate.

So for now, how about we both just agree to "opine" our positions regarding the private/public property issue. OK with you?

Are you sure about that? I am not looking back through 11 pages of posts to see what I said, but I challenge you to find a statement where I said that. It may exist, but I don't think so. If that statement by me exists, be sure to also post my quote regarding the part about it is not stated who owns that beach in a deed, but it definitely shows that the homeowner in that subdivision do not own south of the bluff line. ;-)

Many posts ago, I asked you to drop it until you find the deed that shows who owns the property. You, not me, is the person who continually brings it back up.

Repeat --> you are on the spin cycle. You seem to care more about who owns the beach in front of lot #1 rather than Redfish getting a private access. Get off the merry go round, PLEASE.

As long as I can remember, living first in Grayton, then on the Bay in Santa Rosa Beach, the beach has always been owned by the state. Dad used to build houses along the beach, but they were inexpensive due to the nature of building on sand. Sand shifts! I fail to understand how people can get insurance for expensive houses on sand dunes.

:roll:

Are you sure about that? I am not looking back through 11 pages of posts to see what I said, but I challenge you to find a statement where I said that. It may exist, but I don't think so. If that statement by me exists, be sure to also post my quote regarding the part about it is not stated who owns that beach in a deed, but it definitely shows that the homeowner in that subdivision do not own south of the bluff line. ;-)

Many posts ago, I asked you to drop it until you find the deed that shows who owns the property. You, not me, is the person who continually brings it back up.

Repeat --> you are on the spin cycle. You seem to care more about who owns the beach in front of lot #1 rather than Redfish getting a private access. Get off the merry go round, PLEASE.

Sir, YES SIR!! Just got off, Sir! but it spins again in a month or so. Stay tuned.

Now back to BMBCA and SWCC. Is it just me who finds their complete and SUDDEN absence here puzzling? Surely someone who lives east of 83 must know why. It sure would be appreciated if they could share their insight besides those who support the access at 260 BMRd. I know this item is also a little repetitive, but it DEFINITELY relates to the RFV access issue and, I believe, warrants an answer.

Now back to BMBCA and SWCC. Is it just me who finds their complete and SUDDEN absence here puzzling?

I find their complete and SUDDEN absence here quite puzzling since i've never seen a post by BMBCA or the SWCC. what is left of this horse to whip?

Now back to BMBCA and SWCC. Is it just me who finds their complete and SUDDEN absence here puzzling? Surely someone who lives east of 83 must know why. It sure would be appreciated if they could share their insight besides those who support the access at 260 BMRd. I know this item is also a little repetitive, but it DEFINITELY relates to the RFV access issue and, I believe, warrants an answer.

Vagrant I am convinced you do this to hear yourself talk over and over again. I just told you a few posts ago that you posted on #311 BMBCA's position. Are you being coy? Do you have short term memory loss? Is it possible just possible that people have a different opinion here and that yours might not be the prevailing opinion? Even though you post every 5 minutes.

Now back to BMBCA and SWCC. Is it just me who finds their complete and SUDDEN absence here puzzling? Surely someone who lives east of 83 must know why. It sure would be appreciated if they could share their insight besides those who support the access at 260 BMRd. I know this item is also a little repetitive, but it DEFINITELY relates to the RFV access issue and, I believe, warrants an answer.

Have you asked their leaders, directly, rather than on a message board bulletin?

Private beach access poised for construction in residential area
By Gabriel Tynes

After months of residential opposition and departmental delays, plans for a controversial private development are scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners Tuesday. The Redfish Village beach access, located two lots west of the public access on County Road 83 in Blue Mountain Beach, was approved by the planning department in a unanimous vote Jan. 11.
Redfish Village?s pursuit of a private access began more than two years ago, when it purchased a beachfront parcel six lots east of CR 83 to accompany its 80-unit community under construction a few blocks inland. That lot, along with the majority of properties in the neighborhood, has a land use designation of ?residential preservation.?
Such designation would not support the proposed private beach cabanas and dune walkover Redfish Village would like to build, because it would exceed both density and intensity restrictions.
Complaints from a group of Blue Mountain Beach homeowners, coupled with the inherent violation of the county?s comprehensive plan, prompted the planning department to repeatedly deny the proposal. Santa Rosa Beach?s New Orchard Group, the development company bankrolling Redfish Village, eventually abandoned the request.
However, the conflicts and complaints were not the only problems with the proposal. Internal correspondence from the planning department revealed that planners were also at odds with the developer?s decision to include the private beach access on promotional materials, a ploy which some believe would help drive up the marketability of the community.
In a May 2006 letter from Planning Manager Lois LaSeur to Staff Attorney Lynn Hoshihara, LaSeur wrote that the developer was telling prospective buyers the county had already approved a private beach access when in fact they hadn?t.
?We told the developer months and months ago that they couldn?t build a beach access there,? LaSeur wrote. ?It violates the land use on that property. They actually put out a brochure with a description and a picture.?
Subsequently, LaSeur wrote Redfi sh Village developers demanding that they cease telling investors the access had been approved and recall all corporate literature depicting it. Furthermore, LaSeur asked the developers to respond with a letter acknowledging the access was not approved and that it would be in violation of the county?s comprehensive plan. Whether such a letter was ever submitted could not be confi rmed by The Sun.
In August 2006, not long after the first plan was stonewalled, Redfi sh Village acquired the lot at 260 Blue Mountain Road. The new lot, while less than 500 feet from the other, carries a land use designation of ?infi ll.?
Infill allows dense, nonresidential developments to build out in neighborhood planning areas (NPAs) as long as they meet certain compatibility requirements. The three-quartersacre lot cost Redfi sh Village more than $5 million. While the project continues to wait for approval, an owners-only, private beach walk is listed as an amenity on the development?s Web site.
Albert Serrero, who owns two condos in Blue Mountain Beach, opposes the plan.
?I feel kind of bad because if they don?t get this easement, everybody that has a contract can probably back out,? Serrero said. ?But they put the cart before the horse. The bottom line is that this should never have happened,? he continued. ?And I would have a harder time fi ghting it if there weren?t four other accesses in the neighborhood already.?
Serrero was referring to the three public neighborhood accesses and the public regional access that all lie within six-tenths of a mile on Blue Mountain Road. Two of the neighborhood accesses were wiped out by past storms and remain out of commission, and the regional access suffers from a lack of bathroom facilities or adequate parking.
?The old lot was wrong on so many levels,? Serrero said. ?But this new spot isn?t any better. One of the conditions of an infi ll project is that it is compatible with the neighborhood ? and this is not compatible in any way, shape or form.?
BMB resident Pat Tylka said reopening or revamping the current accesses would resolve many of the problems.
?You?re going from supporting something for the community to supporting something for a select group of individuals and that?s not right,? he said.
Other residents at the Jan. 11 meeting had similar complaints, but they also wanted to address traffi c concerns on the roads and the beaches, along with worries that Redfi sh Village could lease their access to other developments.
NOG developers have indicated that the access will be serviced by a twice-hourly trolley, and contractual clauses will prohibit Redfi sh residents from traveling to the access in their own vehicles. Furthermore, the planning commission approved the proposal with the explicit condition that covenants prohibit Redfi sh Village from allowing access to any outsiders.
Planning Commissioner Tom Patton wondered about the feasibility of a trolley, and whether the residents would support it after the first few years of service, or once the community is turned over to a homeowners? association.
?You can?t compare a service trolley for 80 units to a service trolley for 6,000 units like in Sandestin,? Patton said. ?What works for them may not work for you.?
But Redfi sh Attorney George Ralph Miller, who also owns a home in the neighborhood, ensured the private access would have just as many benefits for the public. Late last year, NOG donated $50,000 to the Walton Tourism Development Council to make repairs or build bathroom facilities at the CR 83 access. Miller said Redfish would not lay claim to beach, and the public would be allowed to pass through.
?This is a good deal,? Miller said. ?They are contributing to a civic use.?

...
NOG developers have indicated that the access will be serviced by a twice-hourly trolley, and contractual clauses will prohibit Redfi sh residents from traveling to the access in their own vehicles....

Thanks for the update, SoWalSally. Maybe this is what edrodrog, vagrant, and walker have been talking about with the lying. I just wish they could have said it rather than taking up 10 pages of accusations without evidence. By the way, the bold in your statement above is incorrect. In fact, NOG developers have specifically stated that they envisioned people driving their family with all of the cheap plastic crap to the private access lot in their own vehicles, then returning their vehicles to Redfish Village and walking back to the beach. ;-)

Complaints from a group of Blue Mountain Beach homeowners, coupled with the inherent violation of the county’s comprehensive plan, prompted the planning department to repeatedly deny the proposal. Santa Rosa Beach’s New Orchard Group, the development company bankrolling Redfish Village, eventually abandoned the request.
However, the conflicts and complaints were not the only problems with the proposal. Internal correspondence from the planning department revealed that planners were also at odds with the developer’s decision to include the private beach access on promotional materials, a ploy which some believe would help drive up the marketability of the community.
In a May 2006 letter from Planning Manager Lois LaSeur to Staff Attorney Lynn Hoshihara, LaSeur wrote that the developer was telling prospective buyers the county had already approved a private beach access when in fact they hadn’t.
“We told the developer months and months ago that they couldn’t build a beach access there,” LaSeur wrote. “It violates the land use on that property. They actually put out a brochure with a description and a picture.”
Subsequently, LaSeur wrote Redfi sh Village developers demanding that they cease telling investors the access had been approved and recall all corporate literature depicting it. Furthermore, LaSeur asked the developers to respond with a letter acknowledging the access was not approved and that it would be in violation of the county’s comprehensive plan. Whether such a letter was ever submitted could not be confi rmed by The Sun.

I just love this section of Gabriels article. I have tried to say it and I guess I could not say it like Gabriel did. Now KT does he have typos in his story? I think it is his job to deliver the facts. Seems like if Brad Zeitlin replied than it would be public record and should be obtainable. Do you have the letter for this reporter? You can email it to him (go ahead click on it or go to the article and click on it there) to set the record straight and show him who runs the county down here. Like I have said in the past get it in writing with these folks, tape record the message hire a stenographer to capture everything they say because you can trust me KT they will, BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! THEY WILL run over you..

I have been spending a lot of time reading up on the Walton County, Code of Ordinance and seems like RFV might have a problem still. Seems that they might need more space based on the commercial aspect of this PrivateBA. Unless I am reading it wrong, and of course it is all about how you twist up this thing, they need a 250 foot buffer around this PrivateBA development because it is within a residential preservation designated NPA. Unless I am reading it wrong we the community have every right to deny this project and the county commissioner is suppose to listen to the community on this one. Now I am not sure if i read it correctly but I am sure I will be slammed for bringing it up.

Thanks SoWallSally