BMBCA Members,
Be aware that the developers of Redfish Village are asking the county for changes or amendments to their Development Order #402003. That is to say they want to do much more than what was requested and approved when this project originally went through the planning department and came before the county commissioners. The development is located across the street from the old Blue Mountain Beach subdivision north of 30-A. It runs from the northeast corner of the 30-A and highway 83 intersection east to Big Redfish Lake and north to the Lakeside At Blue Mountain Beach subdivision.
After having just gotten (last week) county approval to put a private beach access for their commercial development on what was at that point the location of a nice beachfront duplex, they are now saying they want to go into a preservation area on their property north of 30-A and add an open air theater, an additional pool and a board walk and dock on Big Redfish Lake. According to the county the developers have destroyed the preservation area on the east side of their property, which is located just west of Big Redfish Lake. We believe additional development in the area of this rare coastal dune lake will put additional pressure on this body of water. The county is considering this request, which was apparently made at a county technical review meeting 12/20/06. More recently various officials have been asked to comment on the proposed additions. We have just found out about the proposal on 1/30/07. The deadline for comments is 2/6/07.
We believe these are not small changes to the development. These amenities should have been requested when the development was originally proposed to give the community a chance to comment before the commissioners considered the plans for approval. Again, these changes are proposed for an area that is designated preservation. These areas should remain preserved and anything that has been disturbed should be restored. Those are the county rules. Furthermore these preservation areas may have helped garner approval for this development to begin with. If approved we believe the open air theater will produce a great deal of noise in the surrounding neighborhoods. We do not believe this is appropriate.
Despite reasonable protections for vegetation in the county code, these old trees continue to disappear. In large part this is because the county has failed to take any meaningful steps to enforce the code. Fencing off of protected areas is not required during construction and fines are rarely imposed and we are not sure they are ever collected. We negotiated with the developer of this property before he went to the county commissioners (BCC) for initial approval. Based in part on those negotiations we did not oppose the development at the BCC hearings and the development sailed through the process gaining quick approval.
The developer has already destroyed much of the vegetation along highway 83 that is designated preservation and some along 30-A. They were aware of this requirement to preserve the vegetation but stated to us they wanted to remove the native vegetation and landscape the areas. The county told them no. Nonetheless they have taken down much of the vegetation so they can move forward with ?landscaping,? which is what they wanted to do to begin with. The county has failed to fine the developer or take any meaningful action. It is still not clear what if anything the developer will be required to do with regard to restoring the areas along 30-A and 83. In the past, where any restoration was required, the county environmental officer allowed trees that were not much more than four-foot tall twigs.
We recently asked developer Brad Zeitlin if he was committed to restoring the vegetation that was destroyed in the building process. He told us, ?the landscape plan work we have been doing contemplates the replanting.? We asked what that meant, that it certainly did not sound like a commitment to restoration. He then wrote, ?we are committed to replanting the preservation areas.? What they are committed to is a landscaping plan, not a restoration plan, which is what they wanted all along. He invited us to view the plans but has failed to set a date. Since our conversations with Zeitlin we have found out he has submitted landscaping plans to the county, and the county has told them to ?remove some of the species that are not typically represented in the Sand Pine Scrub community.? We applaud that action on the part of the county and hope they will also require the developer to plant trees in similar density, height or diameter to the plants that originally existed on the site. They have not in the past.
If these proposals, destruction of trees and other vegetation in the preservation areas, an open air theater, an additional pool and a board walk and dock on Big Redfish Lake, concern you, speak out to our commissioners and to the planning department NOW.
Thank you.
Richard Fowlkes, President
Blue Mountain Beach Community Association
?Dedicated to the preservation of our residential community - its natural beauty and its quality of life ? through education, communication, and cooperation?
Scott Brannon, District 1
brascott@co.walton.fl.us
Kenneth Pridgen, District 2/Chairman
prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us
Larry Jones, District 3
jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us
Sara Comander, District 4
comsara@co.walton.fl.us
Cindy Meadows, District 5/Vice Chairman
meacindy@co.walton.fl.us
Ronnie Bell, County Administrator
belronnie@co.walton.fl.us
Pat Blackshear Director of Planning and Development
blapat@co.walton.fl.us
Lois La Seur
laslois@co.walton.fl.us
The DeFuniak Herald / Beach Breeze
herald@dfsi.net
The Walton Sun
sunnews@link.freedom.com
Replies
65
SoWal Expert
needs to get out more
Monitor me please. I love it when you prove me wrong. This is going to be fun.
just the facts please.:roll:
Beach Lover
Johnr he was famous on the beach access board and as you read through it you can see his desperation to grasp at anything, now he has started it on this thread quickly with the same kind of statements. I have gotten to know some people well enough to know he has said things directly enough, just go read back through what he said that he will soon be in a bit of trouble.
Kevin you do not scare me. How can I get in trouble for making statements that are true? Your attempts to discredit me are killing me.
Beach Lover
From www.RedfishVillage.com/amenities:
"RESIDENCES. A pair of weathered cedar and sun-washed stucco four-story buildings house well-appointed condominiums ideal for a second home, a vacation property, or the year-round residence you've always dreamed of. Each spacious, two-bedroom or three-bedroom unit features tasteful wood cabinetry, granite countertops, and upscale appliances. Flooring includes wood, ceramic tile and carpeting. One building is a lively mix of residential and upscale retail and restaurant space. The other is purely residential, offering convenient access to the pool, amphitheatre, children's play garden and scenic walking and biking trails around Redfish Lake. Other amenities include a private owners' lounge, and covered and valet parking."
If they were truly denied the ampitheatre and "trails around the Redfish Lake," there may be some material changes to the contracts or property worth investigating for the buyers. I have always wondered how they were going to create trails "around" the Lake when they don't own most of the property around the Lake. Perhaps the better word choice could have been "near."
Any attorneys out there want to comment?
Thanks SJ. I am not going to go around in circles with KT or JR anymore.
Beach Lover
Wow Edroe have not seen you panic so quickly like this. I am not trying to scare you. I have nothing to do with your situation. Just answering Johnr's question. Believe me boy I have no reason to lie about what I told him. And you discredited yourself on the beach access thread.
needs to get out more
edroe, what's the problem? will it be too telling to answer direct questions? why would you evade if there's nothing to fear?
SoWal Expert
...
Again, All of these things are suppose to be approved before you get started with your development....
Can you please show me where in the Code, that this is stated. 
Now, again, to advertise any ammenity, in advance as a sure thing, could get any developer into big trouble, and I think we are beginning to see that happen here. Will buyers be able to back out of their contracts with Redfish Village? We will soon see. I think one major factor here that no one has mentioned is that when these units were pre-sold, the market was booming and the developer probably wouldn't care if he couldn't get things approved and people backed out, because at the rate the market was going, he could have sold the units for even more money. Now that the market is tight, the situation is a bit different.
Edited
Beach Lover
Wow Edroe have not seen you panic so quickly like this. I am not trying to scare you. I have nothing to do with your situation. Just answering Johnr's question. Believe me boy I have no reason to lie about what I told him. And you discredited yourself on the beach access thread.
Do not get confused KT.
Forgot all questions are directed to you on SoWal. You have all the answers. You are in the KNOW.
Beach Lover
Very witty. Think it is time for bed.
SoWal Expert
Beach Lover
Very witty. Think it is time for bed.
Nice to have debated with you tonight. Did not expect to get hammered on by the SUPPORTERS this late.
JR-Thanks for the good time tonight but I am going to bed too.
PEACE OUT.
Beach Lover
Very well. Until the next time.
SoWal Expert
needs to get out more
Nice to have debated with you tonight. Did not expect to get hammered on by the SUPPORTERS this late.
JR-Thanks for the good time tonight but I am going to bed too.
PEACE OUT.
figured as much...
Beach Lover
Living in Blue Mountain many of us know Richard Fowlkes very well. Using his BMBCA pulpit he has pushed many of us around maybe all of us. What I find very interesting is that in his recent letter he writes when talking about the original approval for Redfish Village including the lots behind the big buildings called Lakeside at Blue Mountain:
"Based in part on those negotiations we did not oppose the development at the BCC hearings and the development sailed through the process gaining quick approval." Richard Fowlkes
What we in Blue Mountain know is that he is talking about when he says "the development" he is talking about the previous developer who sold this property to the current developers of Redfish. And for some reason he backed off opposing The Preserve and Lakeside at Blue Mountain (the original name for Redfish Village when the previous developer had it) while it looks like he is not backing off the main Redfish project. For some other reason it looks to me (and many of us in Blue Mountain may know about this) like he made a pretty penny on some very hard to get lots direct from the original developer which he speaks about back when the market was good and flipped them (just check out the public records):
LOT 15 BLK 1 BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH #1
LOT 107 PRESERVE AT GRAYTON BEACH
LOT 126 LAKESIDE AT BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH
Wait, are you saying that while Richard was fighting the original developer he took ownership of some lots in the same development then for some reason didn't oppose the project in the BCC meeting and the development as he says it "sailed through"?
I wonder what "Based in part on those negotiations we did not oppose the development ..." means?
An interesting question (all questions) would be "does Richard serve his own interests and not the interests of his neighbors like me"? Is he quiet when he has something to gain? Can he be bought? Is it possible that the Redfish people wouldn't pay him off? Although I am part of Blue Mountain and had an interest in whether The Preserve and Lakeside "sailed through" for some reason I couldn't get any of those lots he got. Good job Richard. Not all your neighbors appreciate the way you operate. And not all of us believe everything you write in your self-serving letters.:nono1:
"Based in part on those negotiations we did not oppose the development at the BCC hearings and the development sailed through the process gaining quick approval." Richard Fowlkes
What we in Blue Mountain know is that he is talking about when he says "the development" he is talking about the previous developer who sold this property to the current developers of Redfish. And for some reason he backed off opposing The Preserve and Lakeside at Blue Mountain (the original name for Redfish Village when the previous developer had it) while it looks like he is not backing off the main Redfish project. For some other reason it looks to me (and many of us in Blue Mountain may know about this) like he made a pretty penny on some very hard to get lots direct from the original developer which he speaks about back when the market was good and flipped them (just check out the public records):
LOT 15 BLK 1 BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH #1
LOT 107 PRESERVE AT GRAYTON BEACH
LOT 126 LAKESIDE AT BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH
Wait, are you saying that while Richard was fighting the original developer he took ownership of some lots in the same development then for some reason didn't oppose the project in the BCC meeting and the development as he says it "sailed through"?
I wonder what "Based in part on those negotiations we did not oppose the development ..." means?
An interesting question (all questions) would be "does Richard serve his own interests and not the interests of his neighbors like me"? Is he quiet when he has something to gain? Can he be bought? Is it possible that the Redfish people wouldn't pay him off? Although I am part of Blue Mountain and had an interest in whether The Preserve and Lakeside "sailed through" for some reason I couldn't get any of those lots he got. Good job Richard. Not all your neighbors appreciate the way you operate. And not all of us believe everything you write in your self-serving letters.:nono1:
Edited
Admin
KT - I deleted your previous post because it was not only confusing but seemed to contain some serious accusations. You posted parts of a letter from an individual. Was this a private letter or public? Maybe if you back up and fill us in we will see the relevance and I will understand what you were getting at.
Beach Lover
I can't believe you deleted that post. Why don't you delete the one from Sowal Sally which contains as you say some serious accusations? Where is the back up for that? The "part" of the letter is from the posting on page one of this board from the letter from Richard Fowlkes. He wrote it. And everything else said there is a fact. You ask about relevance? 90% of the twenty pages on the beach access thread and most of them here are a series of unproven serious accusations but for some reason you just choose to delete my posts. People have been questioning character and maligning people I know and you haven't stopped one of those posts. I am questioning the character of Richard Fowlkes with facts about his dealings with a developer. Is this supposed to be a fair forum? I am asking you to put my post back up.
And are you kidding me with deleting because it was confusing? Go look at some of Edroedrog's posts. Are you joking.
And are you kidding me with deleting because it was confusing? Go look at some of Edroedrog's posts. Are you joking.
Edited
Admin
I can't believe you deleted that post. Why don't you delete the one from Sowal Sally which contains as you say some serious accusations? Where is the back up for that? The "part" of the letter is from the posting on page one of this board from the letter from Richard Fowlkes. He wrote it. And everything else said there is a fact. You ask about relevance? 90% of the twenty pages on the beach access thread and most of them here are a series of unproven serious accusations but for some reason you just choose to delete my posts. People have been questioning character and maligning people I know and you haven't stopped one of those posts. I am questioning the character of Richard Fowlkes with facts about his dealings with a developer. Is this supposed to be a fair forum? I am asking you to put my post back up.
And are you kidding me with deleting because it was confusing? Go look at some of Edroedrog's posts. Are you joking.
Calm down. I did not see the name on the first post and you could have referred to it or quoted it to help us out. And you are leveling some serious accusations and I advise you to watch it. You are treading on thin ice. As I have said many times in the past we don't allow personal attacks, especially against people who are not here to defend themselves.
I've restored it but I still see it as confusing.
SoWal Expert
Kevin, those are powerful accusations. I double checked with County records and those three properties are interesting tidbits of info that is new to me. It does seem that Richard has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Doesn't mean much, as he could have purchased the properties on the up and up, like many other people did. It is interesting, though.
Beach Comber
Why did Cindy Meadows, who represents the area of South Walton, miss such a crucial vote on the private beach access?
SoWal Expert
Why did Cindy Meadows, who represents the area of South Walton, miss such a crucial vote on the private beach access?I am sure that she could better answer that question. Have you asked her? Please report back to us with her answer.;-)
Comm. Cindy Meadows
90 Spires Lane, Unit 7-A
Santa Rosa Beach, FL. 32459
Phone: (850) 622-3059
Fax: (850) 622-3067
e-mail: meacindy@co.walton.fl.us
Meow
Why did Cindy Meadows, who represents the area of South Walton, miss such a crucial vote on the private beach access?
I remember reading something about a family illness or emergency.
Beach Lover
Calm down. I did not see the name on the first post and you could have referred to it or quoted it to help us out. And you are leveling some serious accusations and I advise you to watch it. You are treading on thin ice. As I have said many times in the past we don't allow personal attacks, especially against people who are not here to defend themselves.
I've restored it but I still see it as confusing.
First of all Kurt I have not leveled any accusations. I have posted facts and once again I will state that I have asked questions. If you want an example of an accusation which you should delete it would be something like Edroedrog #8 on this thread but for some reason you ignore his posts and only delete my mine.
I am hearing you say you don't allow personal attacks but you do. I would ask somebody independent like Smiling Joe or Johnr to comment on whether there were any personal attacks on the beach access thread.
There is a trust that we have here that you are neutral and treat everybody fairly. You might not like it but deleting my posts, telling me to "watch it" when you allow all the trash posted over the past couple months is not perceived as fair by me or I would suspect several other people here. You own this site and can do what you want but you know what they say about absolute power. Use yours carefully.
Beach Lover
Kevin, those are powerful accusations. I double checked with County records and those three properties are interesting tidbits of info that is new to me. It does seem that Richard has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Doesn't mean much, as he could have purchased the properties on the up and up, like many other people did. It is interesting, though.
I will say it again SJ that these are not accusations. These are questions. I know you know how to use the public records, can you tell how much money was made? Anybody can buy property and flip it nothing wrong with that but it is very interesting knowing how Richard acts about who he is and what he stands for. Does it make sense for him to sit back and let a development in his own front yard sail through? The FACTS are presented on the public records. That is all I am asserting. Draw your own conclusions on the rest of it.
SoWal Expert
Kevin, after reading your post again, I do see that you are presenting questions. My apologies to you for calling them accusations.
Yes, anyone can look up the public information like sales.
At a glance, I really don't see anything fishy about the properties Richard owns or sold, mentioned in your post. As for the one in Blue Mtn Beach S/D, I believe it is his primary residence which he bought some time ago.
For the property in Lakeside at Blue Mtn, while the Prop Appraiser's site still shows the entire property as one big parcel, the GIS stll shows Richard Fowlkes as still being the current owner of the lot you mentioned. I think the more interesting info here is that the County has assessed his lot at only $41,785.
That is kind of wierd since he paid $280,000 for it in June of 2005. Think someone screwed up here -- in a major way. It isn't only his lot, but every lot in this development, including the Lake front lots, has been assessed at only $41,785 each. No wonder people are moaning about taxes, especially when they see other people's assessed value so much lower. Look across the street in the Village of Blue Mtn, and you will see the lots assessed around $250,000, while the assessed value of the lots in the subdivision to the south of Hwy 30A start around $425,000.
Looks like Richard made some good money on the lot in the Preserve at Grayton Beach when he sold it, but I know many people who did. His purchase price seems in line with other buyers at that time, and I bet he is glad that he sold it when he did.
I am unaware of what you mention about Redfish Village being bought from the developers of Lakeside at Blue Mtn. You lost me there. I think that Lakeside at Blue Mtn, was developed by Blue Mountain Preserve, LLC, so that might be the confusion -- I don't know. Funny how people like to throw in words like, "Preserve" into their LLC names and development names, then cut down most of the trees on the property and pave and buid on the majority of it. Or, how they illegally build a bridge through the wetlands, without requesting permission for a permit. Why don't they call it what it is rather than sugar coating it with beer goggles? Drives me bonkers.
On the whole, I don't see this connection with Richard and the questionable payoff from the Developers of Redfish Village. My guess is that Richard was probably quite about Redfish Village's lot #2 Private Beach Access due to his residence being directly down the street from where most Redfish Village owners would be walking to the beach, if Redfish didn't score the permission to use lot #2 for the access. Just my guess. NIMBY
Yes, anyone can look up the public information like sales.
At a glance, I really don't see anything fishy about the properties Richard owns or sold, mentioned in your post. As for the one in Blue Mtn Beach S/D, I believe it is his primary residence which he bought some time ago.
For the property in Lakeside at Blue Mtn, while the Prop Appraiser's site still shows the entire property as one big parcel, the GIS stll shows Richard Fowlkes as still being the current owner of the lot you mentioned. I think the more interesting info here is that the County has assessed his lot at only $41,785.
That is kind of wierd since he paid $280,000 for it in June of 2005. Think someone screwed up here -- in a major way. It isn't only his lot, but every lot in this development, including the Lake front lots, has been assessed at only $41,785 each. No wonder people are moaning about taxes, especially when they see other people's assessed value so much lower. Look across the street in the Village of Blue Mtn, and you will see the lots assessed around $250,000, while the assessed value of the lots in the subdivision to the south of Hwy 30A start around $425,000. Looks like Richard made some good money on the lot in the Preserve at Grayton Beach when he sold it, but I know many people who did. His purchase price seems in line with other buyers at that time, and I bet he is glad that he sold it when he did.
I am unaware of what you mention about Redfish Village being bought from the developers of Lakeside at Blue Mtn. You lost me there. I think that Lakeside at Blue Mtn, was developed by Blue Mountain Preserve, LLC, so that might be the confusion -- I don't know. Funny how people like to throw in words like, "Preserve" into their LLC names and development names, then cut down most of the trees on the property and pave and buid on the majority of it. Or, how they illegally build a bridge through the wetlands, without requesting permission for a permit. Why don't they call it what it is rather than sugar coating it with beer goggles? Drives me bonkers.
On the whole, I don't see this connection with Richard and the questionable payoff from the Developers of Redfish Village. My guess is that Richard was probably quite about Redfish Village's lot #2 Private Beach Access due to his residence being directly down the street from where most Redfish Village owners would be walking to the beach, if Redfish didn't score the permission to use lot #2 for the access. Just my guess. NIMBY
Edited
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.