Redfish Village Beach Access

[Smiling JOe]

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.

 

[PTWizard]

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.

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

 

[Smiling JOe]

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."

 

[edroedrog]

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.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

....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?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

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.

 

[edroedrog]

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.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

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.