Redfish Village Beach Access

[edroedrog]

I wasn't at the meeting but heard there was nothing new. If the developer meets the advertising deadline, they can get on the next agenda for the planning commission meeting Jan. 11.

Apparently the planning staff will tell the commission that there is nothing technical preventing their approval. It sounds like this will come down to a subjective decision about compatibility by the commissioners. If the public raises enough cane and the commission worries that this is a bad idea and could set a precedent they might deny it.

Most likely though they will just pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and let them deal with it. The BCC is notorious for rolling over to the party more likely to sue.

This issue is really absurd when you think about it. Scenic 30A beaches will become walled and guarded with rent a cops all over the place protecting turf and telling people to get off the private beaches. Tow trucks will be everywhere because thousands of cars from large developments and subdivisions will be trying to park near their private accesses.

Today, 80 units at Redfish, tomorrow, 2,400 homes in <name goes here> subdivision. And what's to prevent existing developments, whether it be 6 homes, 45 condos, 22 townhomes, or 234 apartments from buying gulf front property and doing the same thing?

Buster-Tell me a little more seems you know the meeting is January 11th. It was suppose to be Feb. 8th and somehow changed. Did you know that or did you just guess they would get on the Jan 11th list?

Anyhow, I am not a engineer and surely not a lawyer but I have seen some documents that would not allow this Land to be used for PrivateBA. I am not sure what you mean by rolling over because you know LFV has more to lose.

I would venture to guess that in your neighborhood and buster I do believe you are against this, that you would not want a community anything to popup next to your lot. Am I not right on this one? If I were a land owner near this proposed Major development site I would not want the 24X7 party in the summer months at this site.

 

[buster]

Buster-Tell me a little more seems you know the meeting is January 11th. It was suppose to be Feb. 8th and somehow changed. Did you know that or did you just guess they would get on the Jan 11th list?

I called planning department and was told that if they meet the advertising requirements the developer would get on for JAN. 11. I assume the PC will rubber stamp it and send it to the BCC on Jan. 23.

Thursday, January 11, 2007
5:00 PM Planning Commission
Agenda is available at www.co.walton.fl.us on the Thursday before the
meeting.
SW Courthouse Annex, 31 Coastal Centre Boulevard, Santa Rosa Beach
Doris Cooper, Administrative Assistant, 267-1955

Tuesday, January 23, 2007
4:00 PM Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Agenda is available at www.co.walton.fl.us on the Thursday before the
meeting.
Walton County Courthouse, DeFuniak Springs
Dede Hinote, Executive Assistant, 892-8156

[Anyhow, I am not a engineer and surely not a lawyer but I have seen some documents that would not allow this Land to be used for PrivateBA. I am not sure what you mean by rolling over because you know LFV has more to lose.

I meant I thought the county would approve it. Unless a lot of people raise cain on the compatibility issue and raise a stink about this setting a horrible precedent. Still, my guess is that the BCC will not want to get sued by the developer, nor will they want to see a large project like this flounder and I'm sure a lot of people think is really neat.

If a stink is made and parties threaten to sue then the BCC will probably drag their feet and instill a quasi-judicial process which requires both sides to be represented by lawyers and present evidence regarding traffic, compatibility, etc. This would likely be won by the developer but they certainly don't want this to drag out.


edroedrog - Can you elaborate on the documents you've seen and how they will prevent the private beach access? And will they be presented to the planning commission or BCC?

 

[edroedrog]

edroedrog - Can you elaborate on the documents you've seen and how they will prevent the private beach access? And will they be presented to the planning commission or BCC?[/quote]

I thought you knew that a Lawyer had been retained for the community. He is going to fight it for the folks just like the 1st lot that was denied PrivateBA. Did not take them long to turn that one down.

Looks like the developer does not always win.

Codes strictly state what the land is to be used for.

 

[buster]

edroedrog - Can you elaborate on the documents you've seen and how they will prevent the private beach access? And will they be presented to the planning commission or BCC?

I thought you knew that a Lawyer had been retained for the community. He is going to fight it for the folks just like the 1st lot that was denied PrivateBA. Did not take them long to turn that one down.

Looks like the developer does not always win.

Codes strictly state what the land is to be used for.

The 1st lot has not been turned down by the county. I don't believe the codes reference private beach access for offsite developments one way or the other. This is new ground. If you call and ask planning staff they'll tell you there is nothing preventing the developer from getting the 2nd lot approved. That's why I say it comes down to the somewhat subjective determination of compatibility, which is what is referenced in the codes.

So again I ask you what document did you see and what did it say that makes you certain it will not be allowed?

 

[Smiling JOe]

The 1st lot has not been turned down by the county. I don't believe the codes reference private beach access for offsite developments one way or the other. This is new ground. If you call and ask planning staff they'll tell you there is nothing preventing the developer from getting the 2nd lot approved. That's why I say it comes down to the somewhat subjective determination of compatibility, which is what is referenced in the codes.

So again I ask you what document did you see and what did it say that makes you certain it will not be allowed?

That is also what the developer has consistantly said -- they own two lots which they have right to use as a blah, blah, blah.

I am uncertain whether or not if "compitable" is defined in the zoning codes. Anyone know?

 

[edroedrog]

That is also what the developer has consistantly said -- they own two lots which they have right to use as a blah, blah, blah.

I am uncertain whether or not if "compitable" is defined in the zoning codes. Anyone know?

Section 2.01.03L2.e. of the Code, This pertains to developent standards for all NPAs

Compatability 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 disstrict. To accomplisht 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.

 

[edroedrog]

The 1st lot has not been turned down by the county. I don't believe the codes reference private beach access for offsite developments one way or the other. This is new ground. If you call and ask planning staff they'll tell you there is nothing preventing the developer from getting the 2nd lot approved. That's why I say it comes down to the somewhat subjective determination of compatibility, which is what is referenced in the codes.

So again I ask you what document did you see and what did it say that makes you certain it will not be allowed?

As I see it the first lot is a done deal. LyingFish Trailer Park would not have bought Lot 2 if this was not the case.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Section 2.01.03L2.e. of the Code, This pertains to developent standards for all NPAs

Compatability 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 disstrict. To accomplisht 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.

Sounds to me like the "or enhance" part is what the developer has been focusing on, because he has been selling it as such that the surrounding properties will have increased value by the lot not having 5 units on it -- just some restrooms and a boardwalk with landscaping.

 

[Smiling JOe]

As I see it the first lot is a done deal. LyingFish Trailer Park would not have bought Lot 2 if this was not the case.

Not true. The developers chances of finding compatibilty and more varied types of building, ie-condos, on surrounding properties are much greater with lot number two, rather than lot number one due to lot number 1 is zoned as preservation residential allowing only one unit per half acre, I believe. Also, there are no condos in close proximity to lot number one. I believe it is the developer's strong opinion that lot #1 wouldn't cut the mustard. It was even much closer proximity to the Redfish Village, and the more natural path expected to be taken to get to the beach. They know they screwed up, but they know that WalCo Gov't is a pushover when it comes to money and networking. For a project which stands to lose this much money, it may be worth some gov't officials wearing leather skin and earplugs.

(Lot #1 and 2 are not the actual lot numbers -- just the order in which they were purchased)

 

[edroedrog]

Not true. The developers chances of finding compatibilty and more varied types of building, ie-condos, on surrounding properties are much greater with lot number two, rather than lot number one due to lot number 1 is zoned as preservation residential allowing only one unit per half acre, I believe. Also, there are no condos in close proximity to lot number one. I believe it is the developer's strong opinion that lot #1 wouldn't cut the mustard. It was even much closer proximity to the Redfish Village, and the more natural path expected to be taken to get to the beach. They know they screwed up, but they know that WalCo Gov't is a pushover when it comes to money and networking. For a project which stands to lose this much money, it may be worth some gov't officials wearing leather skin and earplugs.

(Lot #1 and 2 are not the actual lot numbers -- just the order in which they were purchased)

Sorry I missed something then. I understood that someone went into their own pocket to protect the first Lot of choice from being used as PrivateBA.

Sounds like a Buyers Beware campaign should be considered then for Walton County. The Gov. will let the developers come in and make their money and leave.

Community supports the Gov. the Gov. supports the outsiders not the Community. Imagine that in good old Walton county. Seems like I should have gone to the book signing at the @ss cafe SJ.