Sandestin Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) Application

Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Patriot Games, Jan 25, 2017.

  1. Patriot Games

    Patriot Games Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    67
    Letter from the SOA President
    TO: Sandestin Residents
    FROM: Dave Stowe, President, Sandestin Owners Association
    RE: Outcome of 12/19/2016 Planning Commission Hearing

    DATE: January 16, 2017

    As many of you are already aware, on December 19, 2016, the Walton County Planning Commission met to review the most recent Notice of Proposed Change (“NOPC”) application that was submitted by Sandestin Investments, LLC (“SDI” or “Developer”). This NOPC is meant to bring the Sandestin Development of Regional Impact (“Sandestin” or “Project”) back into compliance with its existing development order, based on the County’s Finding of Non-Compliance back in July of 2014, which was based in part on a deficiency in Open Space acreage throughout the Project. It is the opinion of the Class A Board Members of the Sandestin Owners Association (“SOA”) that the NOPC not only fails to remedy the existing non-compliance issues, but also proposes additional changes that are inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, inconsistent with state law, and inconsistent with the public interest.

    At the hearing on December 19, 2016, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the NOPC subject to certain conditions, which are outlined in the order attached hereto. Of particular concern to the SOA are Conditions A-C, which effectively afford a pathway for SDI to come into compliance with the Project’s existing development order by redefining Open Space. These conditions would allow SDI to count, for the first time: one-half of the right-of-way of all neighborhood roads within the Project; areas SDI calls “golf course and lake buffers,” which are actually architectural setbacks on privately-owned, residential lots (i.e., people’s backyards); and common areas within privately-owned, residential neighborhoods and condominiums. SDI would be permitted to count these areas, which were not counted in the Project’s original development order, as Open Space without having to comply with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which has a very different, more traditional Open Space definition.

    The Board of County Commissioners will meet to review the NOPC and the Planning Commission’s recommendation on January 30, 2017 beginning at 9:00 A.M. in the South Walton Annex. If the Board of County Commissioners votes to approve the NOPC, the County will issue an amended development order to SDI that includes these proposed changes and authorizes 1,873 new residential units of mostly high-rise construction. If you are concerned about the impact the proposed changes will have on our community, we encourage you to contact the Commissioners in advance of the hearing, and to attend the hearing and address the Commissioners through public comment.

    For reference, a list of suggested talking points, as well as contact information for each of the Commissioners, are provided below.


    SOA’s Suggested Talking Points

    • When making the decision to purchase their homes, Sandestin residents invested in property within a development that was largely built out. The existing development, without any additional increases, struggles with inadequate capacity, mainly on roadways and with stormwater management. The changes proposed in the NOPC will further exacerbate the capacity issues of many major facilities.
      • For example, in 2014 and again in 2016, the SOA undertook internal traffic studies that demonstrated that existing roadways within Sandestin cannot accommodate the increased traffic that would result from approving the NOPC.
        • There is not sufficient land available to expand the existing roadway network, and options for relieving congestion are limited.
        • The lack of capacity on Sandestin’s roadways will not only decrease property values and the quality of life for Sandestin residents, but also presents a serious health and safety concern.
      • The further disappearance of pervious Open Space contemplated by the NOPC will intensify Sandestin’s existing stormwater capacity issues, resulting in increased flooding.
        • For example, the NOPC proposes to take Jolee Island, a parcel clearly set aside for preservation in an ecologically sensitive part of the development, and turn it into high rise condominiums, which the County’s land development regulations do not allow and the existing infrastructure cannot support, all so the Developer can construct units which he knew were not permissible at the time he acquired the development.
        • Until the Developer demonstrates compliance with the Open Space requirements of the existing development order, under no circumstances should the County permit changes that result in further development of areas designated as Open Space.
      • In order to bring the Developer into compliance with the Open Space requirements of the existing development order, the Planning Commission has recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the NOPC subject to certain conditions.
        • One such condition is that the Developer will be permitted to count one-half of all neighborhood road right-of-way as Open Space. Roads as Open Space to correct the fact that predecessor developers over developed the project is a bad idea.
        • Another such condition is that the Developer will be permitted to count portions of privately-owned, residential property as Open Space.
        • Permitting the Developer to claim these areas as Open Space is not a solution to Sandestin’s existing Open Space deficiency.
        • The Developer cannot ensure that these areas remain undeveloped because the Developer does not own or control these areas.
        • Allowing the Developer to come into compliance by redefining Open Space in this manner is a disservice to Sandestin residents who depend on Open Space for drainage and for the overall character of the development.
    • The Developer fully understood Sandestin’s limitations when he made the decision to purchase the Project. Now, the Developer asks the Commissioners to change the rules so that the Developer can continue to pursue profits off of a development that was largely built-out years ago, at the expense of the quality of life of current Sandestin residents.
    • The County should prohibit further development in Sandestin until the Developer comes into compliance with Sandestin’s existing development order, including the Open Space requirement as it exists today, and until the impacts of further development on major facilities can be adequately evaluated.
    • And ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT should be compliant with the County Comprehensive Plan.
    Walton County Board of County Commissioners
     
  2. John G

    John G Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    297
    Wow, a lot, I mean a lot of people oppose this!

    The SOA HOA Board President doesn't just write his personal opinion and send it in...

    I hope Walton County BCC understands this process and respects the thousands of residents that have pushed for this stance against this taking of private property rights.

    One lone developer vs. thousands of Walton County Taxpayers and Voters. We'll see who supports this and who opposes it. (Place Your Bets Anyone).
     
  3. Patriot Games

    Patriot Games Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    67
    Here is something that was posted on Visioning face book page. I smell a dirty deal.


    Here are just some questions I presented to the BCC a few weeks ago about the upcoming NOPC. The staff had refused to answer these for years until Commissioner Nipper told them they had to answer, The responses were prepared by Greg Stewart an attorney hired to advise the planning Dept. In his answers he ADMITS the developer has no ownership or control over some of the areas he seeks to claim and apparently the staff is OK recommending approval despite not looking at the drainage or knowing why a developer did something. It begs the question, why didn't the staff simply reject the application? I provide my rebuttal to these answers tomorrow. Again I thing the intent of this group is to have vision in how to make our community better and protect our way of life. We just cant do that effectively until the rules are enforced fairly for businesses, residents and developers. We have got to level the playing field. Thank you Commissioner Nipper for your courage and leadership of the PEOPLE.

    Questions given to BCC

    1. Why has parcel 561 been changed to 561.1 and who made the application.

    RESPONSE: That particular parcel has historically been identified as parcel 561. As part of this most recent application, that particular parcel was now designated at parcel 561.1. Staff has not been provided with any reason or explanation as to why the applicant (Sandestin Investments, LLC) is requesting to change changed 561 to 561.1.

    2. Has SDI provided any ownership proof or proof of a recorded legal instrument that gives him control over any parcel in Block G.

    RESPONSE: On January 18, 2017, staff was provided with a copy of the various plats and covenants for all of Driftwood Estates as well as the covenants and restrictions. I have seen no deeds or other ownership documents within the material provided which would demonstrate their legal control over parcels within Block G.

    3. Where in the NOPC application is the change from open space/golf course for 561.

    RESPONSE: There is no reference or modification contained within the current NOPC application relating to the golf course for parcel 561 (now designated as parcel 561.1). There is no ordinance that removed the Golf Course from the Driftwood Area. The previous owners would have been the responsible party to make that change and should have done this NOPC prior to the development of Driftwood Phase II. I would note that during the 2005 application the then developer did modify its allocation tables to reflect the assignment of residential density to that parcel.

    4. Where in the application is the elimination of the road connection in the southwest corner of Driftwood point Road?

    RESPONSE: I am not aware of a road connection in the southwest corner of Driftwood Point Road. Nor does the current application address the elimination of the road connection in the southwest corner of Driftwood Point Road. It was requested that the master plan map be revised to eliminate reference to Driftwood Drive which was abandoned by the Board in 1988. The revised master plan map does not clearly reflect the closure/abandonment.

    5. SDI has no authority recorded that requires Driftwood HOA’s either 1 or 2 to ask permission before construction is done in common areas and platted open space. (If SDI has provided the County either a copy of a legal document that requires this, please provide).

    RESPONSE: Staff has not received nor have I seen any legal authority or documents reflecting the existence of a requirement that Driftwood HOA, either 1 or 2, must seek permission before construction is done in common areas and platted open space. However if the NOPC is approved as submitted, then these areas are potentially included as open space and if there is any construction within those areas, then there would need to be a corresponding reduction in open space.

    6. When Driftwood II was approved it was conditional on the SOA and declarant providing an access in southwest corner of driftwood. It was never done even though it was required. Why is staff recommending that be allowed to be closed?

    RESPONSE: Initially, Driftwood Drive was initially included as part of the plat of Driftwood Estates approved in 1979. In 1988, that road was abandoned and closed by the Board of County Commissioners. The closure was accomplished by the Board of County Commissioners through the abandonment procedures contained within Florida Statutes. That issue was the subject of several court challenges and the actions of the County in abandoning the road was upheld. I am unaware of any conditional approval that required that there would be an access in the southwest corner of Driftwood.

    7. Why has staff made no mention of Dr. Harper’s report on the drainage standards. Clearly none of SDI’s submitted projects including Osprey Cove meet the drainage requirements. Why will no one discuss this and why was the planning commission not told.

    RESPONSE: Staff has responded to the matters contained within the NOPC Application. The NOPC application does not address the drainage issues or Dr. Harper’s report.

    8. SDI owns the internal lake that Driftwoods exterior drainage should be connected to by the development order requirements. Why is SDI not being made to provide a connection as part of its compliance?

    RESPONSE: The drainage for Driftwood Phase II was submitted, reviewed and approved by the County Engineer as part of its approvals in 2003.

    9. The staff has said SDI should get credit for the major roads and ½ minor roads as open space per the 1984 agreement. The 1984 agreement also make driftwood a golf course and those rights of ways would have been sidewalks, cart paths and as the 85 map indicates equestrian trails. If none of that occurred and after 1984 the developer turned it over to the county (1994) for an MSBU improvement and made it a drainage ditch and utility right of way, why does the staff think that area should still be open space? Can the staff or a BCC member for that point demonstrate the way these ditches can be used for passive recreation as intended or once again if SDI has any control over it.

    RESPONSE: Initially, the Department of Community Affairs and the Developer previously entered into an agreement which required a parcel by parcel allocation and a specific delineation of the various land uses, including open space. As part of that agreement, the Department accepted 100% of the right of way for Major Roads as part of the open space calculations. The inclusion of that area as open space was the reason why the bench mark is 1031.1 acres instead of 957 acres.
    At the compliance hearing, staff had a traffic engineer evaluate the roads, and the capacity level that they functioned. Based on that analysis, we allowed those roadways that were either included as part of the 1984 Agreement or were additional major roadways which functioned as Major Roads. Based upon the standard established in the 1984 Agreement, we accepted 100% of the right of way of those Major Roads as open space. In our discussions, staff recognized that it would be preferable to only include pervious space as open space on these Major Roads, but because of their inclusion previously, it was our view that it would be inappropriate to ignore the determination that had already been included within the 1984 Agreement. The 1984 already showed the County ROW as a Major ROW as part of the 1031.1 acres. Based on the amount of traffic that would be collected on Cocobolo and how it functioned, it was added as well.
    Following the filing of the current application, Staff was requested to review the other roads and determine if they should also be included as open space. Following this review, Staff was willing to accept as open space, all of the right of way of the Major Roads (as had been included in the 1984 Agreement), one half of the right of way of Minor Roads (representing the approximate area that consisted of pervious surface but not the impervious surface areas of the roads), and those Golf Course Easements that are controlled by the applicant. The purpose of the inclusion of these other open space areas was to identify a way that SDI could get back into compliance without the inclusion of claims of open space within common areas. Though staff modified its position on those areas, it is my understanding that SDI continues to seek the inclusion of common areas as open space.
     
  4. Danny Glidewell

    Danny Glidewell Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    561
    Location:
    Glendale
    I voted no on this project when it was before the Planning Commission because I could not square the open space requirements to what currently exists, a solution to the traffic issues was never provided and I could not see how areas in Driftwood could be counted in favor of the development when basically the development has cut ties with that area.
     
  5. Patriot Games

    Patriot Games Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    67
    Here is the response to the county that was posted on visioning. I guess this demonstrates the issue of How is the public supposed to defend this kind of stuff if they are only given 3 minutes to respond and the applicant 1 1/2 hours to present and the county staff unlimited basically.


    Responses to Attorney Greg Stewart's Answers


    1. First, see the response to question 2. Why did the county take an application to change a land use from someone who had no ownership or control over the property? The reason the applicant submitted the interior change of Driftwood to 561.1 is there has never been a 561.1 so the applicant can claim that he has made no changes to 561.1. If he submitted this application as 561, then the staff would HAVE to compare it to the current status of 561 which has been admitted under deposition by county staff as only having a little over 30 acres available for residential and 117 to 128 acres was designated as a golf course which is open space. If the 117 acres of open space/golf course was reduced to all high density residential, then it would be a substantial deviation AUTOMATICALLY by statute FL380 because it would be a reduction of 20 acres or more. This would make the whole DRI subject to an intensive review which the applicant doesn’t want. By just submitting a change this way, it allows the staff to (stupidly) say well 561.1 had no changes, it was a new parcel, when in fact it’s the same parcel as 561 was.

    2. Exactly right, the applicant has no legal position to make changes anywhere in Block G (All of Drifwood), just like he can’t in 208/308 (Grand Boulevard). Those rights were sold long before the applicant purchased there pieces.

    3. Once again Mr. Stewart is correct, there is no application to remove the golf course because then it would have to be reviewed as a land use change and ownership proven and it would be a substantial deviation. What the previous owners should have done was irrelevant, they didn’t do it. It still has to be done and the impacts evaluated, Attorney Stewart knows this is wrong and has worked on this case off and on since about 2007 for the county. No NOPC was accepted or applied for in 2005 so something written on a table that was never adopted because it didn’t make application for it is a pure political smoke screen by Attorney Stewart to confuse Commissioner Nipper. Renee Bradley already testified there were no NOPC’s in 2005, but 2004 the developer submitted a master plan showing a golf course even though they had pulled a permit for 463 homes without submitting a land use change. Density is not the issue, the unevaluated land use change is. Density has been parked all over the place in this DSRI foe years, approved uses matter before density can be applied.

    4. Why is Attorney Stewart not aware of the condition letter for the approval of Driftwood II? The previous developer provided a WRITTEN pledge to open the access currently still shown on the master plan when the county required it for the approval of Driftwood II. AFTER the plat was recorded, the SOA wrote the county a letter saying they had basically changed their mind and were not going to open the road. The county did nothing to enforce it and just continued to allow building to go on even though the safety exit that was required for the permit was not going to be there. I agree the road was abandoned in 1988, so what? The developer applied for the master plan through an NOPC application in 1999 which became the 2000-03 ordinance approved February 8th 2000. It made adjustments to the Master plan that included Driftwoods interior having the golf course and the road plan designated the southwest corner of Driftwood drive a major collector defined in color and in the tables as the Major artery for driftwood that gives them access to exits points on US 98. It’s true that the developer went through the legal process to abandon that road from the public. 11 years later they made application to readopt it and it was legally adopted and on the plan Today as testified by the staff in sworn deposition. What the county isn’t saying is when the 88 abandonment went before the judge and it was represented that the road had been abandoned. The county didn’t tell the judge it had been readopted by ordinance and had and was currently shown on the plan as a major collector road. I wouldn’t get the proof until a hearing before the special master that the county had the correct paperwork indicating this but since the summary judgement ruling was BEFORE the county turned over the documents, I couldn’t show proof at the hearing. When the state told the county that the master plan needs to be accurate, it didn’t relieve the county of evaluating those changes as required and Driftwood and Driftwood II’s traffic has never been formally evaluated because both the developer and staff know a road connection is required for evacuation if nothing else. The current evacuation point is outside the neighborhood and ineffective and located outside the DRI boundaries.

    5. Correct, which is why the developer can’t do this! He can’t stop the elimination of open space without LEGAL control. He simply is a minority property owner now. The previous declarant was not.

    6. See answer #4. Attorney Stewart continues to pick and choose what he wants to see and admit.

    7. If you take this statement as face value, what the attorney states is even if the staff knows that something doesn’t meet requirements, they won’t evaluate anything that’s not applied for in the application. That’s wrong and conspiring with the developer. Both Traffic and Drainage are two of the three regional impact areas of a DRI development order that HAVE to be evaluated. Using this logic, an applicant can simply avoid review of a required assessment by simply not applying for it. In this case this NOPC eliminates a Golf Course and a collector road connection with no review, just a map change submission because no FORAL application for the changes is spelled out. A twisting of the process.

    8. This one is crazy. So what the county engineer approved it, somebody signed off the Titanic, that doesn’t make it right. The county has received 4 pieces of correspondence form the state, spent millions on the drainage issue in legal fees, paid for a PHD opinion that said the county engineer was wrong and had a Special Master rule that the county should let an outside expert determine compliance, he did, the county paid 60k for it and now wants to ignore it. Oh by the way, the county engineer was employed by the previous developer when applications were made in Driftwood and he signed them as the applicant. The county doesn’t see this as a conflict that he is saying what he helped apply to do is now compliant. The water is being dumped with no treatment in the bay and the county wants to take no action to require it to pass through the pond filtration system as the DO requires.

    9. Giving him credit for open space that was based on an agreement and plan that wasn’t followed, period the end. The residents of Driftwood have paid over 4 million dollars in MSBU special assessments to turn the 1984 “Open Space” into a drainage system that’s non-compliant at the Developers request. Now that he gave it away, he wants credit for it to be used as something it no longer is. Adding Cocobolo road just because it was “LIKE” 1984 is crazy. He doesn’t control Cocobolo and no assessments have been performed on how it affects traffic. This answer is twisted by the county and developer on purpose.
     
  6. John G

    John G Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    297
    It took me about 4:36:18 to read this post let alone the time it takes to process this cluster F. If I was to respond to the facts presented it would take even more time to construct a reasonable response.

    If anyone thinks that limiting the public to 3 minutes for complicated legal issues is appropriate, let alone any general comments, they need to rethink their position as an Elected Official, elected to SERVE the Public.

    I think that if by default the BCC has to consult an Attorney on an issue then the time allotted to public comment should, by default be extended based on the $$$ spent on the legal adviser.

    For example if an issue costs $1000.00 in legal fees (at the time of formal discussion) then the public comments limit should increase from 3 minutes to let's say 9 minutes. $333.33 x 3 = $9999.99. Time is money and money is time. This is just an example.

    We want to know how our dollars are spent and as a tax payer, I'd like Representation by Spendation.... (Not a word, just made it up). If Cecila, Tony, Meanie, Bill or Sarah have the ability to spend time which = $$$ with an attorney, then my comments shall not be limited to 3 minutes because they have to go home that night and my comments run "long". Do you know how much it cost me or my fellow peers to "hire" a lawyer? Lots of $$$. Our time is $$$ and Our Voices Shall be heard.

    Just an example for starters...we can go on.

    If an expert provides testimony that something happened and it didn't that would be an issue...possibly a ethical one or maybe criminal one. They should be held accountable, both personally and financially. Wonder if that happened here with Driftwood...???

    Lots of issues here...
     
  7. Bob Wells

    Bob Wells Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    746
    Is Meanie a misspelling or are you trying to infer something?
     
  8. Patriot Games

    Patriot Games Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    67
    Really bob????? All that information and you are concerned he misspelled Melanie? You always antagonize John G, don't think it's not noticed. This issue will cost the County more money than fixing every fire department in the county to standards. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
     
  9. John G

    John G Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    297
    Boob,

    It was a simple spelling error, nothing inferred.
     
  10. Will B

    Will B Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,372
    Likes Received:
    832
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    yeah, ya big meanie!

    LOL!
     
  11. Kaydence

    Kaydence Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,553
    Likes Received:
    312
    Location:
    Florida

    Who else voted NO?
     
  12. Suzanne Harris

    Suzanne Harris Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    88
    Well it would have been worth going to see how mad Becknel was at Blue when the motion was denied. I am so glad there are cell phones that take videos. Just too good to be true. Now why is Becknel mad at Blue, he did not have a vote???
     
  13. Patriot Games

    Patriot Games Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    67
    Well when they voted no Becnel ran out into the hallway and grabbed blue. I took a picture and Blue promptly grabbed Cecilia at the break and started waiving his arms at her although I couldn't hear them. Blue and Becnel were clearly upset.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  14. Kaydence

    Kaydence Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,553
    Likes Received:
    312
    Location:
    Florida
    Driftwood Estate Residents deserved some good news for a change.
     
  15. Danny Glidewell

    Danny Glidewell Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    561
    Location:
    Glendale
    Mine was the only no vote at the Planning Commission level. I am glad to hear that that 3 commissioners apparently agreed with me.
     
  16. Kaydence

    Kaydence Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,553
    Likes Received:
    312
    Location:
    Florida
    I'm not so sure they agreed with you (Melanie I'm sure did) I personally think they voted as they did because the homeowners of Driftwood are suing them again. At least common sense prevailed for a change.
     
  17. John G

    John G Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    297
    [Quote member: 26821"]Well when they voted no Becnel ran out into the hallway and grabbed blue. I took a picture and Blue promptly grabbed Cecilia at the break and started waiving his arms at her although I couldn't hear them. Blue and Becnel were clearly upset.[/QUOTE]

    Who were the two supporting votes?

    Why would a developer be mad at another developer and mad at an Elected Official over a vote at a government meeting?

    Boy am I confused...
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  18. Kaydence

    Kaydence Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,553
    Likes Received:
    312
    Location:
    Florida

    It's my understanding that Chapman, Nipper and Comander voted NO.

    As to your other question, I think you know the answer. :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2017
  19. Patriot Games

    Patriot Games Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    67
    And of course phony Tony looked around like "What Happened???? Did I do it wrong?"
     
  20. Kaydence

    Kaydence Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,553
    Likes Received:
    312
    Location:
    Florida
    I watched the very long video last night of the BCC meeting. There was never ANY doubt (in my mind) T. Anderson and C. Jones would vote to approve the DRI. No surprise, so predictable and proof positive that developers and big money control their seats on OUR County Commission. Neither of them give a damn about their constituents despite their feeble protests to the contrary.

    Comander (in my opinion) is distancing herself from the 3 musketeers as she said she would after she was blindsided by Chapman and lost her chair to C. Jones. Sara did the right thing and should get kudos for that. KUDOS Sara!

    Nipper proved she IS the peoples representative on the BCC and her questions were centered around the 5000 homeowners who would be impacted the hardest by approval of the DRI. Her comments and questions were thoughtful, well researched and factual in content. Despite being new to all of this and her nervousness, she asked tough questions and was not swayed by double speaking attorneys who tried to make the truth of what was really intended with the DRI as proposed more palatable.

    The wildcard, Chapman...was only moved to vote against this by homeowners unwilling to relinquish their property rights to Sandestin. His body language spoke volumes about his internal conflict (whether to approve or deny the DRI) and I think his brain finally realized property owners intended to fight back against the taking of their property. It was the right thing to do Chapman! KUDOS to you also for haltingly taking some responsibility for your constituents. It should never be an internal struggle to do the right thing. :)

    As to the majority of those who spoke in favor of the DRI, it did not go unnoticed that most of them were either employees of SDI or homeowners who would benefit from the proposed DRI in the way of "improvements".
     

Share This Page