• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

NotDeadYet

Beach Fanatic
Jul 7, 2007
1,416
489
At the recent BCC meeting, Aug. 11, attorney George Ralph Miller appeared with a new attempt to, once again, change the land use classification of the Seagrove Villas from NPA (neighborhood planning area) to commercial.

I would have pasted the proposed "resolution" here, but it comes up in a PDF. You can access it on the internet by going first to the county's home page, Walton County, FL - Home Page, click on "Your Government", then click on "Agendas and Meetings" and select the drop down box for Commission Agendas. Choose Aug 11, and when the file comes up, you can click on the agenda item at 4:15 pm for attorney Miller and read the "resolution."

I understand from a friend who was at the meeting that Miller told the BCC he did not intend to ask for approval of the resolution, but for the setting of a public hearing about it. There were two attorneys there in opposition, but the BCC did in fact set the hearing to take place at the Sept 22 BCC meeting, which as it happens is in DeFuniak.

Never mind that this has already been settled in court. It just goes to show, like Jay Odom again asking for that state forest corner in Grayton, that some people just never give up. :bang: If they can't get there one way, they will try another.

No matter seems to be every fully resolved in this county. It reminds me of that whack the popping heads game in the arcade. You whack one down, and another one pops up somewhere else.
 

GoodWitch58

Beach Fanatic
Oct 10, 2005
4,810
1,923
yeah and did you ever notice how they all look the same?
 

Here4Good

Beach Fanatic
Jul 10, 2006
1,264
529
Point Washington
I am infuriated by this. I have read this part of the FLUM descriptions, this was CLEARLY INTENTIONALLY designated in this manner so that the land would go BACK to the use which is in place on either side of the motel, in the event the motel was torn down.

This FLUM designation is only 13 years old; SURELY the minutes are still around which contain the discussion.

The resolution is unadultered BS.

They BOUGHT the property KNOWING the FLUM designation and ASSUMING they could get it changed. I suggest they sue whichever commissioner they paid off at the time to insure the designation could be changed for breach of contract.
 

NotDeadYet

Beach Fanatic
Jul 7, 2007
1,416
489
That is the case for many so-called "non-conforming" uses, that the commercial use goes away at some point in the future. But that intent has been subverted time and time again.
Just ask the folks in Peach Creek - that might be the most egregious example, and the case that gave new meaning to the phrase "scrivener's error."
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,644
1,773
actually, to correct a previous statement, the motel doesn't have to be torn down for the land use to revert back to the original use. I believe the LUC calls for the property's value to be destroyed by only 50% or more for the property to revert, regardless of whether it is man or nature who does the damage. The other way for it to revert back to 4 single-family lots is for the current business to cease for a minimum period of 6 months. (Planning Head, Pat Blackshire spoke a while back about this and said that the County has been working under a different book (my words, not her's), saying that they look solely at whether the power to the property is cut off, in order to determine with the actual business has stopped for 6 months.

I believe Seagrove Villas business stopped for more than six months, and therefore should currently be reverted to four single-family lots, but I am not a lawyer. Seems that there is more than one reason why this property should not continue as a commericial use, and those are based on existing land use codes, which were in place before the property was purchased by NatureWalk.
 

Here4Good

Beach Fanatic
Jul 10, 2006
1,264
529
Point Washington
Actually, I did not say that the only way for it to revert was if the motel was torn down. I said that if it is torn down, the land use reverts.
 

NotDeadYet

Beach Fanatic
Jul 7, 2007
1,416
489
saying that they look solely at whether the power to the property is cut off, in order to determine with the actual business has stopped for 6 months.
I just love it how the county makes up their own rules. So this facilitates the continuance of a non-conformity virtually indefinately, as long as someone can afford to pay a minimum electric bill and maybe keep a light or two burning. Confirms my earlier statement about subverting the intent of the code.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,644
1,773
I don't believe that actually turning on a light was a requirement -- just the disconnection of power for six months.
 

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,132
575
63
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
I just love it how the county makes up their own rules. So this facilitates the continuance of a non-conformity virtually indefinately, as long as someone can afford to pay a minimum electric bill and maybe keep a light or two burning. Confirms my earlier statement about subverting the intent of the code.


From what I have seen, actual laws in this county are irrelevant. We pay an attorney to fight for what the BCC feels is needed. Totally ignoring laws, codes, and rules. Almost like an Attorney Full Employment rule or something to that effect.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter