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

Uncle Timmy

Beach Fanatic
Nov 15, 2004
1,013
31
Blue Mountain Beach
fisshforfun said:
A couple of years ago I made the mistake of purchasing a lot in the prestigious Watersound St. Joe development here in South Walton County. After years of trying to get plans approved by their design and review process, tons of headaches, threats of $2500.00 per month fines for not stating a project on time, a total disrespect of owners, I could never recommended anyone to purchase a lot in a St. Joe development! Even though you are forced to select an approved Watersound architect, the Watersound DRB committee jerks every lot owner around for months at a time. There is an official pattern book, but this committee only uses it for reference, so owners and architects are left with becoming mind readers! There is no parity or equitable toward their reviews, and you can expect your plans to have to be redrawn at least a half dozen times. Guess its job security of the architects (and the DRB board members) who on average charge 10% of total build out costs. Personally, I recommend anyone to think twice before every purchasing a lot in any St. Joe development!

I'm reluctant to get in the middle of this but.....

as I deal with the Watercolor/St. Joe review boards and their approval process frequently maybe I can shed a little light on this subject.

First, Watercolor is by far the most difficult community to get your house plans approved in our area.

But, most homeowners, working with experienced architects who have worked with the St. Joe review board before will get their plans through the review process in about 3-4 months.

Of the projects I have been involved with in Watercolor:

60% went smoothly
30% involved several revisions and re-submittals
10% were nightmares!

I don't doubt FFF's experiences, and I can relate to it; but I can say it is not typical of the average review process.

When dealing with a St. Joe development, keep the following in mind:

1) Give yourself a realistic timeframe for completing the review process. Many homeowners wait until their build-out date is looming and try a last minute sprint to get their house underway.

2) Accept the fact that it is a heavily regulated community, and when the review board DEMANDS that you follow certain guidelines, they are not picking on you personally.

3) Either work with an architect who is experienced with the St. Joe review process, or accept that it will take longer to get your plans approved. There are many quirks about working with their ARB that are not in the rulebook (as FFF mentioned) so it helps to have done it before.
 

fisshforfun

Beach Crab
Feb 14, 2006
4
0
Rita and AMP22, I have no ax to grind, just trying to help other prevent making the same mistake of ever purchasing in a St. Joe development without informed knowledge of what to expect. I have been also told the DRB process is much easier to pass in Watercolor than Watersound. I assure you my architect has been drawing plans for Watersound and Watercolor since both developments were started. Found out today that the Watersound sales staff is finally being honest with informing potential buyers to expect ONE YEAR minimum in the DRB! If you don't believe me, stop by the WS sales office. The original sales staff are no longer working there, but the new folks appear to telling potential buyers everything, except that there are over 80 lots for resale. Every owners meeting Watersound has had over the past two years there have been angry owners upset about the lengthy DRB process. I don't anticipate any changes or improvements occurring in this development until St. Joe has to deal with litigation from numerous property owners over the unequitable DRB process or the State of Florida. In fact, I have been informed that the state will be putting the magnifying glass to this development very soon. I am glad to hear others have been more fortunate, consider yourself lucky. I personally think St. Joe should have stuck with the lumbar and stayed out of development business.
 

Kurt

Admin
Oct 15, 2004
2,322
5,020
SoWal
mooncreek.com
fisshforfun - thanks for clarifying and giving more details.

Why would the sales staff not tell people how many lots are for sale and what difference does it make? I'm not sure what the problem is. Can you clarify?

You have an extra S. Do you want me to remove one?
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,644
1,773
fisshforfun said:
... The original sales staff are no longer working there, but the new folks appear to telling potential buyers everything, except that there are over 80 lots for resale. ...

FYI - The information that can legally be given to a customer by a sales associtate is controlled and limited, depending on the type of Broker Relationship you have with the Broker. For example, acting as a Transaction Broker, it is unlawful to run comps for a customer without the customer asking for the comps. Once they ask, the Sales Associate can run the comps. No ask, no get, unless your agent is acting as a Single Agent, which limits the properties he or she can show you. The whole Agency Type process is somewhat confusing to most people, including many Realtors. Most agents around here act as a Transaction Broker, at least until the laws change again in 2008, hopefully making it all much easier to understand.
 

Bob

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2004
10,366
1,391
O'Wal
SJ, In your experience, do most Realtors become transaction brokers for the good of their client, or their own good[to avoid litigation]?
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,644
1,773
Bob said:
SJ, In your experience, do most Realtors become transaction brokers for the good of their client, or their own good[to avoid litigation]?
Typically, the Broker establishes as a rule, the type of brokerage relationship with which they want to do business. In FL, it is assumed that the relationship is a Transaction Broker, unless otherwise noted.

The transaction brokerage allows an agent to show the listings held by their brokerage in addition to other broker's listings.

As a Single Agency, an agent cannot show their in house listings, without first, having the client sign the Transition to Transaction Broker Notice, thereby making the Brokerage relationship a Transaction Broker.

The big difference in duties between the two is a Single Agency has the duty of loyalty to the client, while a Transaction cannot favor one side of a transaction (ie-buyer or seller) over the other.

A third type of brokerage relationship is a "no-representation," in which the duties of the agent to the customer are very limited. Some discount brokerages are using this as they take listing which they do nothing more with than entering the listing in the MLS. Many Developers are also using this for their in-house sales. Liability on the agent/broker's behalf is extremely limited. (note: developers often use it because technically, there is some loyalty to one side -- the developer, and if loyalty is present on one side of the deal, it has to be non-existant on the other.

In 2008, expect all broker relationships to be Transaction Brokers, without the need to disclose to a customer.

All of these disclosures were created to try and protect the customers and clients from the Agents, but they really caused way too much confusion in the process and there are several inconsitancies in the whole thing which do not make logical sense.

Going back to my previous post, if an agent working under the Transaction Broker, provides certain information without being asked by the customer, it could be more easily believed by the customer that the agent was representing the customer as a Single Agency, giving advice to the "client." As a Transaction Broker, an agent is not allowed to give advice, but many agents are so confused by all of this stuff, that they fail to get it correct, and are more likely to have more liabilty in certain circumstances. If you really want to test your agent and get a laugh, ask them to tell you the difference between the three Brokerage Relationships. Even some of the long time pros will stumble, showing you the confusion of the subject. Rarely, will you get the same answer twice, even when asking the same agent.
 

fisshforfun

Beach Crab
Feb 14, 2006
4
0
Kurt, the reason why the sales department at Watersound is not informing potential buyers in Watersound about the other 80+ lots is because, those are re-sale lots..ie. not new sales. There responsibility is for selling lots and making money for St. Joe Development.
 

Hobiecat

Beach Crab
Feb 15, 2006
2
0
There are some valid points on both sides of this argument. We are under construction in Watersound, just made the buildout deadline in December. However, we purchased the lot on resale with approved plans. In talking w/ the architect, approval was not the easiest process, but as a property owner, there is a certain amount of that which I appreciate. Our only dealings with the DRB and St. Joe were getting a builder approved and getting a height variance on the design, both of which were handled very professionally by St. Joe.
 

gardening1970

Beach Fanatic
Jan 8, 2006
458
62
55
Atlanta
Mexico Beach City Council sending annexation proposal to state for review; resident voices his disapproval


By Ryan Burr
News Herald Writer 747-5074 / rburr@pcnh.com
MEXICO BEACH

The Mexico Beach City Council on Tuesday took another procedural step toward allowing a land-use change on St. Joe Co. property near Tyndall Air Force Base for mixed-use development.
The Planning and Zoning Board last week recommended sending the land-use change proposal to the state for review, and the council Tuesday night affirmed that consensus.
Although the council, meeting in the civic center, called its action procedural, Bay County resident Peter Rougier said during public comment: ?What you?re doing tonight, in essence, is you?re approving it. Once you transmit it (to the state), it?s over.?
Rougier had told the council he was opposed to St. Joe?s plans to build 70,000 square feet of commercial space and 750 residential units, plus ?significant trails and parks? on 550 acres between the base and Mexico Beach.
St. Joe has requested the city annex the 550 acres and switch it from agriculture-timberland to a new classification of mixed-use/tourist and preservation. There were about 60 people at the meeting, including a strong contingent of residents who are wary of the proposed development.
With a proposed density of two units per acre and a 48-foot height limit, St. Joe representatives at the meeting said the development will compliment the existing community character.
Councilman Robert Ginsberg was willing to lay his political future on the line over the issue.
?You?re going to have drugstores, doctors,? he said. ?Think of the benefits. ? We will not let you down. You can throw me out of office (if the development harms Mexico Beach).?
Mayor Chuck Risinger offered more specific input on the proposal Tuesday night, setting the record straight on what he viewed as misinformation getting to some residents.
He said Tyndall already has been consulted about the project and will continue to have a chance to share concerns.
With 48-foot-high buildings, he said Tyndall does not see a negative impact on their flight path. ?Noise may be an issue,? Risinger said.
On the subject of sewer capacity and other infrastructure demands, Risinger said ?we think we ultimately may have a shortage,? although it?s too early to know for sure.
?It?s up to the developer to ensure those needs are met,? he said.
Risinger also acknowledged that Mexico Beach residents who don?t have a homestead exemption could face ?a lot higher taxes? as a result of the St. Joe development.
Once the state Department of Community Affairs receives the land-use change document, it has 60 days to respond. Included in that response will be comments from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tyndall Air Force Base, the West Florida Regional Planning Council and other agencies.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter