Redfish Village Beach Access

Can somebody from each camp give me a Cliff Note's version of the dispute here? I am way too lazy to read all the thread, but want to know why everyone sounds like they are about to beat the living crap out of each other.
Thanks-S'ape

:clap_1: :nono1: :scratch:

Beach access should not be an issue because there are several for that area. Private beach access IS the issue. There are several public beach accesses in that area, although I know of one which is still closed from storm damage.

If the developers had left out the word "private" when describing beach access, there would not be a problem for the developers. However, there would still be the problem of many more users being dumped onto the beach in that area.

The ability to access the beach is not the issue. The issue is the promised private access on the specific lot east of 83, referenced by legal description and the attached survey in the contract. If this is not provided, the seller is in breach of contract.

"their proposal has nothing positive to add to the health and use of the beach or the protection of the marine life."

If private beach access is granted, the developers have agreed to construct a day spa for sea turtles on the lot - at least that's what someone told me.

to try and truly argue that having beach access is not a major selling point is extremely naive.

go gators, i'll make it a little more simple for you to understand. this is where my statement originated:

On the other issues you are being a little too defensive IMHO. Flyforfun made a general statement about the "devlopers" not knowing what they are doing which is pretty evident from the fact that they were offering something they can't get approved and marketed it and got around 60 signed contracts based on it.

who is being naive? i agree it is a major selling point, as you have quite adequately shown us, twice in as many posts. i too have been to their site, see waaaay back at post #8, where BMBW called me out. thanks for your timely input.

Beach access should not be an issue because there are several for that area. Private beach access IS the issue. There are several public beach accesses in that area, although I know of one which is still closed from storm damage.

If the developers had left out the word "private" when describing beach access, there would not be a problem for the developers. However, there would still be the problem of many more users being dumped onto the beach in that area.

The ability to access the beach is not the issue. The issue is the promised private access on the specific lot east of 83, referenced by legal description and the attached survey in the contract. If this is not provided, the seller is in breach of contract.

Is there an echo in here?

Can somebody from each camp give me a Cliff Note's version of the dispute here? I am way too lazy to read all the thread, but want to know why everyone sounds like they are about to beat the living crap out of each other.
Thanks-S'ape

There's new oil rigs in BMB so that we can restore the shoreline.

Developers building condo project with promised private access with amenities.

The proposed lot is in BMB.

BMB residents don't want it there.

Can somebody from each camp give me a Cliff Note's version of the dispute here? I am way too lazy to read all the thread, but want to know why everyone sounds like they are about to beat the living crap out of each other.
Thanks-S'ape

Developers building condo project with promised private access with amenities.

The proposed lot is in BMB.

BMB residents don't want it there.

...and if the developer cannot provide public access, there could be trouble, as many people who have reservations on the condos, might be able to use that as a way to get out of their contracts, which would leave the developer and the lender in a heap of mess, while leaving a ghost village on the corner of 83/30A. There is serious precedent which will be set by the decisions made regarding this private access for an 80 unit condo in this neighborhood zoned for a maximum of 8 units per acre.

how did/do they plan to keep this access private and exclude others from using this so called "private access."

why did they purchase another lot for this purpose after they had units under contract?

"scratch a lie, catch a thief." Ray charles

how did/do they plan to keep this access private and exclude others from using this so called "private access."

why did they purchase another lot for this purpose after they had units under contract?

"scratch a lie, catch a thief." Ray charles

They have mentioned placing a gate on the north and south ends of the lot. My guess is that one will need an access card to gain entry. That is only a guess, as I have not heard how access will be granted.

Your second question is a little vague. I am not sure if you are asking why they purchased a second lot, or why they didn't have a lot purchased with private access approved prior to promising it and taking reservations.

The first lot they purchased for access is zoned preservation residential which I believe limits density to two units per acre. The second lot which they purchased is zoned NPA Infill with limits on max density to 8 units per acre, and the infill zoned lot may allow for a little more liberal uses. I have not looked at the zoning for either of these two properties, but that zoning info was coming from the representatives of the developer. According to the developer's representative, it is their intent to sell the other lot, when they are allowed to use the one lot for private access.

not what minutes for meeting says with regard to what they're doing with lots:


6) REDFISH VILLAGE GATEWAY - Project number 06-00100133 being a major development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Les Porterfield as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0032 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.

12) REDFISH VILLAGE AMENDMENT TO D/O 402003 - Project number 06-013-00055 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 27, 2006 by Les Porterfield as Engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0081 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to add a dock and move preservation on site with future land use designation of Village Mixed Use being reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located at the corner of CR 30A and CR83 (2064 West County Hwy 30A).

Smiling JOe, was the pontoon boat still on the lake the last time you were there?

Do you have a question about this? Not sure what you are asking? gogator

not what minutes for meeting says with regard to what they're doing with lots:


6) REDFISH VILLAGE GATEWAY - Project number 06-00100133 being a major development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Les Porterfield as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0032 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.

12) REDFISH VILLAGE AMENDMENT TO D/O 402003 - Project number 06-013-00055 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 27, 2006 by Les Porterfield as Engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0081 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to add a dock and move preservation on site with future land use designation of Village Mixed Use being reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located at the corner of CR 30A and CR83 (2064 West County Hwy 30A).

I don't understand your statement. Item 6 is for the lot to the west of the 83 public access. Item 12 is not for the gulf front lot to the east of the 83 public access. Rather, it is for the property on the corner of 30A and 83. They are looking to put in a dock on Big Redfish Lake on the north side of 83, I guess.

Smiling JOe, was the pontoon boat still on the lake the last time you were there?

I don't believe the pontoon boat has left the dock. I was there on maybe Tuesday this week, and I noticed that the chrome-plated prop was getting rusty. Since there is not a lauch on Big Redfish, I am curious as to how they dumped the boat into the lake. Note that the pontoon boat is for the other project, Sanctuary at Redfish.

I don't believe the pontoon boat has left the dock. I was there on maybe Tuesday this week, and I noticed that the chrome-plated prop was getting rusty. Since there is not a lauch on Big Redfish, I am curious as to how they dumped the boat into the lake. Note that the pontoon boat is for the other project, Sanctuary at Redfish.

thanks, just checking. i know who owns the boat.

Is anyone going to the meeting tomorrow.

Is anyone going to the meeting tomorrow.

What meeting?

What meeting?

Re: Redfish Village Beach Access TRC Meeting Agenda

• Meeting Opened

• Minutes Read / Approved

• Announcements

• Items to be heard:

1) STARVIEW TERRACE PLAT - Project number 06 00300046 being a plat application submitted on October 16, 2006 by Alnilam Development Corp., Owner, and Darrell Barnhill, Agent, for property identification number 02-3S-20-34160-000-0160 consisting of 8 multi family units on 1.04 +/- acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Melissa Ward. The site is located approximately 0.5 miles west of County Road 393 on County Road 30A, then go north on Satinwood approximately .25 miles. (Continued from November 15, 2006 Meeting).

2) KRUSE BOAT HOUSE Project number 06 01300040 being a less than minor application submitted on September 14, 2006 by Chandler Huff and Kruse Enterprises of NWFL, Inc. for property identification number 24-2S-21-42270-000-0200 consisting of one (1) 480 square foot building on .328 +/- acres with a future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Melissa Ward. The site is located on Mack Bayou Road to Elrods Fish Camp and the site is south of the fish camp. (Item continued from October 18, 2006, November 1, 2006, November 15, 2006 and December 6, 2006 meetings).

3) THE COTTAGES AT LAKEVIEW PUD Project number 06 00100095 being a major development order submitted on August 16, 2006 by Jack Rhodes for property identification number 34-2S-20-33270-058-0005 consisting of a planned unit development for 136 single family units on 20 +/- acres with a land use designation of Neighborhood Preservation Area/Small Neighborhood being reviewed by Tim Brown. The site is located approximately 4 miles west of the intersection of Highways 331 and 98 on Thompson Road. Turn left off of Highway 98 going south on Thompson Road and the property is located approximately mile on the east side.

4) INLET BEACH BUNGALOWS - Project number 06-00100131 being a minor development order application submitted November 13, 2006 by Seaside Eng. - James Barton, as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 36-3S-18-16100-000-0300 consisting of 9 single-family units with a future land use designation of Village Mixed Use being reviewed by Tim Brown. This site is located approximately 1,000 feet west of CR30A and 200 feet east of West Shore Drive on the north side of U.S. Highway 98.

5) PHILIPS LANDING SUBDVISION - Project number 06-00100132 being a major development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Quantum Engineering Group, Inc. as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 25-3S-18-16090-000-0210 & 0211 consisting of 4 single family lots on 1.08 acres with a future land use designation of NPA / Infill being reviewed by Mark Martin. This site is located north of U.S. Highway 98 on the northwest corner of Pine Wood and Orange Street.

6) REDFISH VILLAGE GATEWAY - Project number 06-00100133 being a major development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Les Porterfield as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0032 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.

7) LOTS 7 & 8 SOUTH WALTON COMMERCE PARK - Project number 06-00100134 being a minor development order application submitted November 22, 2006 by Terry Anderson, P.E. as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 05-3S-18-16010-000-0070 and 05-3S-18-16010-000-0080 consisting of 2 buildings totaling 33,756 for Office/Warehouse on 2.49 acres with a future land use designation of Business Park District being reviewed by Misty Ferrell. This site is located on the west side of Serenoa Road.

8) CHURCHILL OAKS Project number 06-001-00135 being a major development order application submitted November 29, 2006 by Wilson Miller Engineering for property identification number 21-2S-20-33000-005-0000 consisting of 102-lot single family subdivision with amenities on 41 acres with future land use designation of NPA / Infill and Conservation Residential 2:1 reviewed by Jason Bryan. This site is located north of Highway 98 down Mussett Bayou Road and east on Hodge Road approximately miles.

9) STARVIEW TERRACE LTM - Project number 06-013-00052 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 16, 2006 by Barnhill, Barnhill and Barnhill, Agent for the applicant, for property identification number 02-3S-20-34160-000-0160 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to move the pool house with future land use designation of NPA / Infill reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located approximately 0.5 miles west of County Road 393 on County Road 30A, then go north on Satinwood approximately .25 miles.

10) VILLAGE OF BAYTOWNE WHARF AMENDMENT - Project number 06-013-00053 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 21, 2006 by Will Poon, P.E. of Connelly & Wicker, Inc. as engineer for applicant, for property identification number 26-2S-21-42000-001-0150 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan with future land use designation of Coastal Center being reviewed by Renee Bradley. The site is located within Sandestin.

11) SACRED OAKS LTM - Project number 06-013-00054 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 21, 2006 by Regional Engineering, Don Brock, Engineer for the applicant, for property identification number 24-2S-21-42000-035-000 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to include swimming pools on site with future land use designation of NPA/Infill being reviewed by Melissa Ward. The site is located on Mack Bayou Road in the Sacred Oaks Subdivision.

12) REDFISH VILLAGE AMENDMENT TO D/O 402003 - Project number 06-013-00055 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 27, 2006 by Les Porterfield as Engineer for applicant, for property identification number 12-3S-20-34000-001-0081 consisting of amendment to existing approved plan to add a dock and move preservation on site with future land use designation of Village Mixed Use being reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located at the corner of CR 30A and CR83 (2064 West County Hwy 30A).

13) SOUTH WALTON FIRE DISTRICT ADDITION LTM - Project number 06-013-00056 being a less-than-minor development order application submitted November 27, 2006 by Barnhill, Barnhill and Barnhill as agent for the applicant, for property identification number 27-2s-20-33210-000-0021 consisting of a 4,000 square foot building on 9.54 acres with future land use designation of Conservation Residential 2:1 being reviewed by Jason Bryan. The site is located on the west side of CR393 approximately 1 mile north of Hwy 98 (911 N. Co. Hwy 393).

• Meeting adjourned

I will miss the meeting due to other scheduled events.

I do note one thing. In number 6 in the post above, the land area is listed at 0.63 ? acres, which would equate to a max density of only FIVE homes on this property. The developer's attorney likes throwing around the number as eight units per acre, without noting that they do not own an acre. I believe the Prop Appr's office list the property as consisting of more than 0.63 ? acres. I wonder if some of it washed away over the last year few years.

since i was unable to attend, i feel completely safe in asking. How'd it go?

I will miss the meeting due to other scheduled events.

I do note one thing. In number 6 in the post above, the land area is listed at 0.63 ? acres, which would equate to a max density of only FIVE homes on this property. The developer's attorney likes throwing around the number as eight units per acre, without noting that they do not own an acre. I believe the Prop Appr's office list the property as consisting of more than 0.63 ? acres. I wonder if some of it washed away over the last year few years.

Love to know how the meeting goes. Maybe you can ask some of your buddies near you how it went. I am sure it is going to get approved just wondering what impact it is going to really have on the community long term.

Bet the condo owners are upset about it not getting approved too. They have a lot to loose if this does not get approved soon. Suppose to close early next month without the PBA and now sounds like the Dock on Redfish Lake.

LyingFish trailer park is making promises probably to the community and local persuaders down there and will get it done.

The Redfish Village beach access in on the Technical Review Committee Agenda for 12/20. It is advertised in the legal section of the DeFuniak Herald, which is the only notification required for this committee. The purpose of the TRC is for the applicants and planning staff to go over issues prior to being scheduled for the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. It is a public forum where private citizens can either attend or write in with their concerns. The logical progression would be for the project to go to the next Planning Commission, which will be held the 2nd Thursday in January and then the Board of County Commissioners the 4th Tuesday in January. Both of these meetings will have to be noticed by a sign on the property, mail-out notification to property owners within 300 feet, and twice in the legal section of the DeFuniak Herald. These dates would occur only if everything goes smoothly, as is the case for any project. You can find out the results of the PC and BCC meetings by calling our office the day after. Minutes for all meetings will be available after they have been approved.

edroedrog I am confused - I took this post above to mean we could call your office to get details but the post below indicates maybe you copied the notice above and it is referring to a county office?

Love to know how the meeting goes. Maybe you can ask some of your buddies near you how it went. I am sure it is going to get approved just wondering what impact it is going to really have on the community long term.

What makes you so sure?

Bet the condo owners are upset about it not getting approved too. They have a lot to loose if this does not get approved soon.

Do you mean the developers?

Suppose to close early next month without the PBA and now sounds like the Dock on Redfish Lake.

LyingFish trailer park is making promises probably to the community and local persuaders down there and will get it done.

What is PBA? What is supposed to close next month?


edroedrog, you seem to be heavily involved and I appreciate your info but can you be more clear about things? What do you mean about LyingFish trailer park???

edroedrog I am confused -...


What is PBA? What is supposed to close next month?


edroedrog, you seem to be heavily involved and I appreciate your info but can you be more clear about things? What do you mean about LyingFish trailer park???

I think PBA is his abbreviation for Private Beach Access, but that is a confusing abbrev, because it could also stand for Public Beach Access.

As for the "LyingFish trailer park," he is probably referring to the sales trailer for Redfish Village. I haven't been there and cannot speak to edroedrog's remarks. Maybe he experienced something bad. I do know a few Realtors with H20 Properties who I believe to be the Broker handling the sales, and believe them to be good, honest people. Personally, I have a problem with the sales team getting bashed like they are for promoting a property with plans for a private beach access. The private beach access is beside the point. I am against it personally for several reasons. When an agent takes on selling a development, he or she does so with the nothing more than the developers' good faith in what they are promising. In this particular case, the developer had planned/is planning a private beach access. It is the first thing promoted in their flyers which they handed out, and one of only four ammenities noted for the entire development. I think their intention of having one was/is in good faith. The Broker would have no reason not to think so. It is not a lie to promote your plans for a development, even if the plans change. If the plans do not go through as promoted, that is not a blatent lie. It is a change of plans, for the good or the bad. If the change is a material fact, the seller may be in breach of the contract and the buyers may have a way out without penalty. A lawyer could be helpful in determining whether or not that is the case here. Still, if the Private Beach Access doesn't get permitted, I don't believe the Developer, Broker or their agents were lying if they were legitamately trying to get the private access. In this case, I believe the developer paid well over $8M to procure the two lots in hopes of getting that private access. I believe they are still acting in good faith to do just that. I don't agree with their decision to put in a private access, but that is no reason to say that they are lyers. The developers may have screwed themselves, but their punishment will be in financial terms. This little case should be one for the text books of what not to do. I don't envy them at all, nor do I envy the buyers who intended to sell their units at the closing table. Who will get lucky, is yet to be determined.

I understand if you don't comprehend my point on the developers trying to act in good faith. It does enter a shady bit of gray, but I do believe them to be trying to do what they planned and promoted.

Back to the access, will someone please accurately report on the meeting from this morning?

Meeting at 1:30 this thurs.(tomorrow) at the South Walton Annex concerning Naturewalk's Beachclub. I urge all to attend. I think they purposely pick inconveinent times to eliminate dissent but people should take a hard look at what they're proposing.
20 condos with a private access. And undating the access to the West to allow for a max of 2500 users during the high season. All on 340 ft of beachfront. Will this have an impact in the beach? Does anyone even care?