South Walton's Community Website
Beach Like A Local!
Create Account
New posts

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
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.

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:

Camp Creek Kid

Christini Zambini
Feb 20, 2005
1,271
118
50
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
 

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,772
808
Conflictinator
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).

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
BMB2006-12-12e.jpg


bordered by:
this
BMB2006-12-12d.jpg


and this
BMB2006-12-12g.jpg

BMB2006-12-12f.jpg


BMB sure is nice
BMB2006-12-12b.jpg

BMB2006-12-12c.jpg


seemed kind of quiet though
 

BMBWalker

Beach Lover
Nov 1, 2006
130
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
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
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
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? :rotfl: I wish I could have heard John R's statements at that meeting. Maybe I can get a copy of the transcript.
 

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,772
808
Conflictinator
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

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?
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
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).
 

buster

Beach Fanatic
Feb 19, 2006
283
45
SoWal
John R... you apparently spoke up positively for the Redfish Village proposal in the community meeting last week

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.
 

BPickelTDC

Beach Lover
Jun 30, 2006
115
0
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?


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
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
I believe a small stretch of the beach, adjacent to, and west of Grande Beach, is also platted as public beach.
 
New posts