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

Camp Creek Kid

Christini Zambini
Feb 20, 2005
1,278
124
52
Seacrest Beach
In CKK's defense, she wasn't saying that she hoped that the developer would be "in a bad situation". She was merely responding to the question as to why would the developer want/need to do this private beach access and indicating that a failure to accomplish this could lead to a bad situation for the developer.

Thanks Don, you beat me to it!
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
"Prominence. This is the development where the developer illegally clearcut on CR 30A, has had two stop work orders placed for illegal clearing and then asked for a number of variances including a variance from the CR30A Scenic Corridor guidelines and the native vegetative preservation requirements. The developer has basically claimed that he was misled by the county as to what would be required. The county denies the assertion. The developer has also claimed the required preservation vegetation was planted. The county has disputed this claim. The developer will be presenting a compromise plan for both the Scenic Corridor guidelines and the native vegetative retention requirements."


I'm glad to see this is going to be looked at. What was done to that piece of land is appalling. If the developer is brought to task about it, perhaps it will serve as a warning and example to other developers NOT to clear cut.

I believe that Prominence's defense is that the greenry which they clear cut and removed was Pine Trees, and not the protected species of trees. :bang:

One good thing is about to come from tonight's meeting which is finishing up as I type. -- It's Ro's last meeting as a CC. :clap_1::clap_1::clap_1:
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
In CKK's defense, she wasn't saying that she hoped that the developer would be "in a bad situation". She was merely responding to the question as to why would the developer want/need to do this private beach access and indicating that a failure to accomplish this could lead to a bad situation for the developer.
...and while I am greatly concerned with the number of units going up around Big Redfish Lake in Blue Mtn Beach, I am not wishing financial harm to come to the developers of said properties. I will add, that I think Redfish Village is the least to worry about out of the four huge developments in that small area in regards to it's impact to the local area. Collectively, they all stink compared to what was there before, but Redfish Village will have the least impact to the Lake and the Beach as it stands today, which does not include a beach club. As for the Village at Redfish bringing retail and restaurants to that area, I see good and bad from that, the bad being the question of who will staff those businesses? We cannot keep building businesses which require more people than the owner to work, without first addressing the workforce housing issue.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
I almost forgot, the Montgomery Street thieves and this Village at Redfish beachfront lot items (separate and distinct) were tabled until the next meeting in DeFuniak Springs.
 
Last edited:

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,305
386
One good thing is about to come from tonight's meeting which is finishing up as I type. -- It's Ro's last meeting as a CC.
This goes without saying!


...and while I am greatly concerned with the number of units going up around Big Redfish Lake in Blue Mtn Beach, I am not wishing financial harm to come to the developers of said properties.
I know I've been vocal regarding Redfish Village, but I want to make one thing perfectly clear (if anyone thinks otherwise) since I've been focusing on this issue: I do not wish any ill-will on any developer, including Redfish Village. I have no financial interest whatsover in their success or lack thereof. I, of course, can't speak or won't speak for others... especially those that have contracts for one of their units.

Redfish Village tried to "slide" their private beach access past the neighborhood on the first lot (east of 83), less than honorably I might add, and were denied. They have screwed up and they know it. Should the neighborhood on the west side of the 83 access now pay the price?

For everyone's benefit... This is not a situation where Redfish Village does not have convenient beach access for their development. This is a situation where they have promised (in an attempt to make their development more attractive) PRIVATE deeded beach access.

The idea that a PRIVATE deeded beach access adds "value" to their development is offset by the idea that the same PRIVATE deeded beach access in a residential area detracts from the value AND from the right to quiet enjoyment of adjacent private property. I know I'm being repetitive, but it's important...we're talking about 80 2-3BR condo units. That's potentially a lot of people.

I will add, that I think Redfish Village is the least to worry about out of the four huge developments in that small area in regards to it's impact to the local area.
This may be true, unless you own property adjacent to or near the lot in question. I can't affect total development but I can point out and discourage what I see to be inappropriate use of residential property.

If those of you out there think this is just a localized issue, you'll be next, one way or the other if the Walton BCC and Planning allow this very questionable use of this property to occur.

Thanks SJ, for sharing the info here.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
This goes without saying!


I know I've been vocal regarding Redfish Village, but I want to make one thing perfectly clear (if anyone thinks otherwise) since I've been focusing on this issue: I do not wish any ill-will on any developer, including Redfish Village. I have no financial interest whatsover in their success or lack thereof. I, of course, can't speak or won't speak for others... especially those that have contracts for one of their units.

Redfish Village tried to "slide" their private beach access past the neighborhood on the first lot (east of 83), less than honorably I might add, and were denied. They have screwed up and they know it. Should the neighborhood on the west side of the 83 access now pay the price?

For everyone's benefit... This is not a situation where Redfish Village does not have convenient beach access for their development. This is a situation where they have promised (in an attempt to make their development more attractive) PRIVATE deeded beach access.

The idea that a PRIVATE deeded beach access adds "value" to their development is offset by the idea that the same PRIVATE deeded beach access in a residential area detracts from the value AND from the right to quiet enjoyment of adjacent private property. I know I'm being repetitive, but it's important...we're talking about 80 2-3BR condo units. That's potentially a lot of people.

This may be true, unless you own property adjacent to or near the lot in question. I can't affect total development but I can point out and discourage what I see to be inappropriate use of residential property.

If those of you out there think this is just a localized issue, you'll be next, one way or the other if the Walton BCC and Planning allow this very questionable use of this property to occur.

Thanks SJ, for sharing the info here.
Don't take only part of what I type. You forgot this part which I wrote only several sentences away from that which you quoted me on.

It is in regards to comparing RedFish Village to the other three large developments around Big Redfish Lake:
"Redfish Village will have the least impact to the Lake and the Beach as it stands today, which does not include a beach club."

meaning-- if they build a beach club/private access with amenities, the impact may be greater on the small community.
 
Last edited:

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
I think the crazy thing about the Redfish Village trying to get a deeded beach access is that the public access at CR83 will have bathrooms and will be closer to the Village than the other access which they are trying to build. I think it all comes down to that legal question of a breach of promise that the Village would have deeded beach access. That is only my speculative guess, as I have not seen the reservation agreements.

For the record, there were only about 5 people who raised their hand when BCC Chairman asked how many people were here to hear this item of the lot in BMB. I doubt that many will show up at the next meeting when it is discussed in Defuniak Springs.
 

full time

Beach Fanatic
Oct 25, 2006
726
90
You have a lot of "private" in CAPS Vagrant. Is your issue really diminution of residential values or distaste for private access? I've seen developers construct long access points with no facilities (and the county provide public access with no facilities as well). Frankly, I'm glad VOR developers decided private bathrooms would be far better than having kids crap in the dunes (although I don't discount the value of this for dune restoration purposes). I have no idea whether the developers did anything wrong in obtaining approval, but the general consensus seems to be that these are likable guys. Hell, Roman Emperors use to build lavish bath houses as lasting testaments to their power and glory which archaeologist spent countless time and resources trying to uncover. Can't a bathroom be constructed in a manner that is non-offensive and aesthetically pleasing to neighboring landowners?
 

Camp Creek Kid

Christini Zambini
Feb 20, 2005
1,278
124
52
Seacrest Beach
Hell, Roman Emperors use to build lavish bath houses as lasting testaments to their power and glory which archaeologist spent countless time and resources trying to uncover. Can't a bathroom be constructed in a manner that is non-offensive and aesthetically pleasing to neighboring landowners?


Communal bathrooms, in the Roman style? ;-)
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,305
386
Don't take only part of what I type. You forgot this part which I wrote only several sentences away from that which you quoted me on.

It is in regards to comparing RedFish Village to the other three large developments around Big Redfish Lake:
"Redfish Village will have the least impact to the Lake and the Beach as it stands today, which does not include a beach club."

meaning-- if they build a beach club/private access with amenities, the impact may be greater on the small community.
I honestly did not intend to post your quotes out of context. Please know that this is true.

I believe we're looking at the Redfish Village situation from two different viewpoints:
My viewpoint is as a nearby property owner with friends who own homes adjacent to the lot in question where Redfish Village is attempting to funnel LOTS of people through. I'm not thinking about all the "other" developments going on and their related impacts and issues.
I believe you're looking at the bigger picture. With that in mind, you're probably right regarding Redfish Village having the least impact (in general).
Again, sorry if you thought I was "taking advantage" of your post.

If only one person is harmed by inappropriate use of residential land, it doesn't make it any more right.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter