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?
Redfish Village Beach Access
- Thread starter John R
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
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?
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.
Last edited:
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.?
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.?
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. ;-)
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
Last edited:
Edroedrog I will find out whether the other letter we saw which the reporter must not have seen is in the public record because if it is and the reporter didn't refer to it then you can have your fun with the article but it is wrong and looks like Gabriel wrote was he was told by somebody. I was at the Planning Commission and most of what Gabriel says in the article is wrong. Frankly though it is not my problem and I will let the people at Redfish deal with that. If they tell me then I will tell you. It is easy to see though that the last Walton Sun article on this issue painted Redfish in a nice light and this one seems to be a one-sided interview with Albert Serrero who it sounds like owns two condos near the lot.
Smiling Joe do you believe you can take everything you read even if it is in a newspaper to validate Edroedrog?
Edroedrog what I do care about is the access at 260 Blue Mountain. You asked me to prove you wrong once about the 20% issue and it is clear that you were wrong. Where you again are posting a lie is when you say "they need a 250 foot buffer around this PrivateBA development because it is within a residential preservation designated NPA. ". That is another lie you are posting. The lot on the east side south of my house is residential preservation. The lot on the west side is INFILL and the lot to the east of that is VMU and lot to the west of them is INFILL. Just look at the County website. There now you are wrong again and flat out lied in your last post.
How have these people (who you say you like by the way) "run all over you?"
Edroedrog, will you cite the passage in the County Code of Ordinances which leads you to your conclusion?
look at my signature line below, then you will know the answer. Can I flip this smilie upside down? :roll: That quote should be slightly adjusted, to have the following language attached to the end, "and even some of those are not accurate."
Last edited:
All bold text are from Kevin Thompson to Edroedrog:
"Edroedrog I will find out whether the other letter we saw which the reporter must not have seen is in the public record because if it is and the reporter didn't refer to it then you can have your fun with the article but it is wrong and looks like Gabriel wrote was he was told by somebody."
You have mentioned this letter before but nobody I know has seen it. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt here. Does that mean the first letters written by the county never existed? Does that mean when the county told RFV to quit advertising the private beach access in those letters as part of their development on bathroom lot #1, that a reasonable person could not assume that RFV was denied (at least verbally) by county on bathroom lot #1? RFV, more than one, and emphatically so, stated that they were never denied approval on bathroom lot #1. They insist they simply purchased the bathroom lot #2 for twice the price (5+ million) of bathroom lot #1 simply because they felt "it would provided a better experience for the owners". Right.
"I was at the Planning Commission and most of what Gabriel says in the article is wrong. Frankly though it is not my problem and I will let the people at Redfish deal with that. If they tell me then I will tell you. It is easy to see though that the last Walton Sun article on this issue painted Redfish in a nice light and this one seems to be a one-sided interview with Albert Serrero who it sounds like owns two condos near the lot. "
One sided interview you say? Now you slam anyone, including the reporter, when things don't go your way. Your statements here are pathetic, especially the part where you state "most of what Gabriel says in the article is wrong". Geeeze, get a grip.
"Nice light", bad light....could this possibly be fair and balanced? Doesn't matter. I found MOST, if not all, of Gabriel's articles to be factual. He painted no slant...just reported the other side.
Two or three quotes does not a "one-sided interview" make.
"Smiling Joe do you believe you can take everything you read even if it is in a newspaper to validate Edroedrog?"
Right now, Gabriel's article seems to be a lot more credible than your panicky statements you're throwing around here. (sorry SJ, I see this question is intended for you, not me, but I couldn't resist.)
"Edroedrog what I do care about is the access at 260 Blue Mountain. You asked me to prove you wrong once about the 20% issue and it is clear that you were wrong. "
You know that he has admitted that he was wrong about that particular unrelated "20%" fact already. It doesn't make everything else wrong.
"Where you again are posting a lie is when you say "they need a 250 foot buffer around this PrivateBA development because it is within a residential preservation designated NPA. ". That is another lie you are posting. The lot on the east side south of my house is residential preservation. The lot on the west side is INFILL and the lot to the east of that is VMU and lot to the west of them is INFILL. Just look at the County website. There now you are wrong again and flat out lied in your last post."
Just more panic on your part. I haven't a clue what you're saying here regarding the lots around "your" house. What's your point (if you have one)?
You keep using the word "lie" as in not telling the truth. A simple search on the municipal code website yields the following:
"e. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhoods: The compatibility of new development with existing adjacent neighborhoods shall be considered as part of the review of any proposal for development within the NPA district. To accomplish this, all individual project plans and Neighborhood Plans shall establish a specific combination and quantity of uses which relate to existing adjacent conditions and in effect, preserve or enhance the desirable aspects of existing development in the adjacent areas and ensure compatible new development. The specific criteria which shall be used to by an applicant, where applicable, establish a presumption of compatibility are as follows:
(i) No new commercial or workplace uses shall be established within a 250-foot buffer around areas which meet the definition of Residential Preservation Areas within the NPA district. This specific buffer does not apply to areas designated as Coastal Center, Mixed Use Center, Light Industrial Center or Court Ordered Overlay District on the FLUM."
Certainly seems to me that that Edroedrog is referring to factual code here. Are you saying his interpretation is wrong? That's a far cry from him being a "liar" as you continually called him.
"How have these people (who you say you like by the way) "run all over you?""
One of ways you're trying to do now (at a minimum).... spinning a bunch of crap and trying to sell it as so. They tried to run over Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision on bathroom lot #1 and now are attempting the same on bathroom lot #2.
"Edroedrog I will find out whether the other letter we saw which the reporter must not have seen is in the public record because if it is and the reporter didn't refer to it then you can have your fun with the article but it is wrong and looks like Gabriel wrote was he was told by somebody."
You have mentioned this letter before but nobody I know has seen it. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt here. Does that mean the first letters written by the county never existed? Does that mean when the county told RFV to quit advertising the private beach access in those letters as part of their development on bathroom lot #1, that a reasonable person could not assume that RFV was denied (at least verbally) by county on bathroom lot #1? RFV, more than one, and emphatically so, stated that they were never denied approval on bathroom lot #1. They insist they simply purchased the bathroom lot #2 for twice the price (5+ million) of bathroom lot #1 simply because they felt "it would provided a better experience for the owners". Right.
"I was at the Planning Commission and most of what Gabriel says in the article is wrong. Frankly though it is not my problem and I will let the people at Redfish deal with that. If they tell me then I will tell you. It is easy to see though that the last Walton Sun article on this issue painted Redfish in a nice light and this one seems to be a one-sided interview with Albert Serrero who it sounds like owns two condos near the lot. "
One sided interview you say? Now you slam anyone, including the reporter, when things don't go your way. Your statements here are pathetic, especially the part where you state "most of what Gabriel says in the article is wrong". Geeeze, get a grip.
"Nice light", bad light....could this possibly be fair and balanced? Doesn't matter. I found MOST, if not all, of Gabriel's articles to be factual. He painted no slant...just reported the other side.
Two or three quotes does not a "one-sided interview" make.
"Smiling Joe do you believe you can take everything you read even if it is in a newspaper to validate Edroedrog?"
Right now, Gabriel's article seems to be a lot more credible than your panicky statements you're throwing around here. (sorry SJ, I see this question is intended for you, not me, but I couldn't resist.)
"Edroedrog what I do care about is the access at 260 Blue Mountain. You asked me to prove you wrong once about the 20% issue and it is clear that you were wrong. "
You know that he has admitted that he was wrong about that particular unrelated "20%" fact already. It doesn't make everything else wrong.
"Where you again are posting a lie is when you say "they need a 250 foot buffer around this PrivateBA development because it is within a residential preservation designated NPA. ". That is another lie you are posting. The lot on the east side south of my house is residential preservation. The lot on the west side is INFILL and the lot to the east of that is VMU and lot to the west of them is INFILL. Just look at the County website. There now you are wrong again and flat out lied in your last post."
Just more panic on your part. I haven't a clue what you're saying here regarding the lots around "your" house. What's your point (if you have one)?
You keep using the word "lie" as in not telling the truth. A simple search on the municipal code website yields the following:
"e. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhoods: The compatibility of new development with existing adjacent neighborhoods shall be considered as part of the review of any proposal for development within the NPA district. To accomplish this, all individual project plans and Neighborhood Plans shall establish a specific combination and quantity of uses which relate to existing adjacent conditions and in effect, preserve or enhance the desirable aspects of existing development in the adjacent areas and ensure compatible new development. The specific criteria which shall be used to by an applicant, where applicable, establish a presumption of compatibility are as follows:
(i) No new commercial or workplace uses shall be established within a 250-foot buffer around areas which meet the definition of Residential Preservation Areas within the NPA district. This specific buffer does not apply to areas designated as Coastal Center, Mixed Use Center, Light Industrial Center or Court Ordered Overlay District on the FLUM."
Certainly seems to me that that Edroedrog is referring to factual code here. Are you saying his interpretation is wrong? That's a far cry from him being a "liar" as you continually called him.
"How have these people (who you say you like by the way) "run all over you?""
One of ways you're trying to do now (at a minimum).... spinning a bunch of crap and trying to sell it as so. They tried to run over Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision on bathroom lot #1 and now are attempting the same on bathroom lot #2.