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

conch

Beach Comber
Mar 5, 2010
33
23
As recently reported in the Defuniak Herald {4/6/22} Watercolor
has sued the county to take back the beach easements that were granted to the county by the St. Joe company twenty years ago. One of the easements lies under where the Van Ness Butler beach access crosses to the beach.
An access that was constructed by Walton county .

I can see where this is going if they should win the suit.
First thing would be to put a gate on the beach access. That will take care of those pesky "locals" and keep them from "sitting on the sand, sunbathing, picnicking, building sand castles, and other activities." that are so offensive to the Watercolor/Seaside/Beachfront owners.

They certainly do not want that HVAC technician, who fixed their AC at midnight the night they arrived at their house in Watercolor, to bring his family to the "their" beach. Let them stay in Freeport.

Next they will try and find a way to "leverage" the public parking lot from the county, put a gate on it, then put locks on the public rest rooms.

Then they can provide a private parking area for Watercolor residents, so they can drive their big ass SUVs right to the beach, and never have to leave the comfort of air conditioning. { I don't know how many times I have seen B.A. SUVs with Seaside parking stickers parked in that lot.}

Or maybe they will build another $500+ dollar a night Inn on the property.

The possibilities are endless for Watercolor to add value to the {their} community at the expense of Walton county taxpayers.

These are sad times indeed.
 

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,646
9,496
So they're going back on the deal that allowed them develop in the first place? Tear the whole effing thing down then.
 

bob bob

Beach Fanatic
Mar 29, 2017
723
422
SRB
I think they lost once. As I recall it was the beachfront homeowners who were trying to claim exclusivity.



_______________________________________________________________

The Watercolor Community Association has filed a lawsuit that could result in a stranglehold being placed on the public's ability to get to the beach via Walton County's popular Van Ness Butler Regional Beach Access.

If the association prevails, the county will be ordered to abandon not only a 75-foot easement running across the Watercolor property parallel to the Gulf of Mexico, but also the 20-foot-wide north-south easement where the regional beach access sits.

Opened in 2008, the Van Ness Butler Regional Beach Access lies off County Road 30A across the street from a 100-space parking lot. It is a destination for tourists as well as "day-trippers" from around the region, according to Brian Kellenberger, Walton County's director of beach operations

"That's one of our more popular regional beach accesses," Kellenberger said. "It does get a lot of use."

The lawsuit contends that when the St. Joe Company conveyed both the east-west easement and the north-south easement to the county it did so "to provide a public way of passage" to the coastline and "a way of passage on or by foot, only over and upon the easement parcels" across the sand.

When Watercolor bought the property from the St. Joe, the land and beach adjoining the easements in question came under the stewardship of the Watercolor Community Association.

The association now contends that when the county passed its customary use ordinance in 2017 and again when it filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of customary use in 2018, it triggered an abandonment clause written into the easements granted by St. Joe.

The county's ordinance language declares the white sand areas of the beach should be available to the public to traverse, sit, sunbathe, picnic, fish, build sandcastles, swim or surf.

Those uses constitute "a further attempt by the county to use the easement parcels beyond the limited use permitted by the express terms" of easement agreements codified in 2002 and 2008, the lawsuit claims.

Although there have been no rulings in the Watercolor Community Association case, which was filed in late March, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has already said the county's customary use declaration extends beyond a "way of passage" definition.

In a 2021 ruling in the case of Flock of Seagulls LLC v. Walton County, the Appeals Court ordered a segment of the same 75-foot easement in question in the Watercolor suit be abandoned for a group of beach property owners whose parcels adjoin Watercolor but are not governed by its Community Association.

Justices overturned a trial court's ruling that stated sitting, standing, fishing and picnicking, swimming, surfing and sandcastle building listed by the county "are more comprehensive than, but consistent with, the purpose of the easement."

"A way of passage" refers to a locomotive purpose, not a recreational purpose, the Appeals Court said in the ruling rejecting the trial court argument.

"Sitting in the sand may fall into this category, but others, sunbathing, fishing, swimming, surfing off the beach and building sandcastles go so far beyond incidental stopping that they can't fairly be decreed reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement itself," the Appeals Court said.

It is not clear whether the north-south easement at the Van Ness Butler Regional Beach Access will be subject to the same standard for abandonment the coastal east-west easement has been. Kellenberger referred questions concerning the legal aspects of the case to interim County Attorney Clay Adkinson, who was not available for comment Monday morning.

Kent Safriet, the attorney representing the Watercolor Community Association, declined to comment on the case, citing a client's request that he do so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Beach days

Beach Lover
Jul 2, 2017
117
16
54
Freeport
Yet the county let them put in the new hotel or inn , whatever they call it in the same place the Hampton inn was not allowed. On east end of sea grove . Where there is no beach and the are going to shuttle them to a public beach. I wonder if the inn,Will be able to use the beach in watercolor.
 

bob1

Beach Fanatic
Jun 26, 2010
530
523
Yet the county let them put in the new hotel or inn , whatever they call it in the same place the Hampton inn was not allowed. On east end of sea grove . Where there is no beach and the are going to shuttle them to a public beach. I wonder if the inn,Will be able to use the beach in watercolor.
You're mixing up WaterColor with St. Joe.
 

Lunchbox Joe

Beach Crab
Jul 21, 2022
4
0
Lagos
As recently reported in the Defuniak Herald {4/6/22} Watercolor
has sued the county to take back the beach easements that were granted to the county by the St. Joe company twenty years ago. One of the easements lies under where the Van Ness Butler beach access crosses to the beach.
An access that was constructed by Walton county .

I can see where this is going if they should win the suit.
First thing would be to put a gate on the beach access. That will take care of those pesky "locals" and keep them from "sitting on the sand, sunbathing, picnicking, building sand castles, and other activities." that are so offensive to the Watercolor/Seaside/Beachfront owners.

They certainly do not want that HVAC technician, who fixed their AC at midnight the night they arrived at their house in Watercolor, to bring his family to the "their" beach. Let them stay in Freeport.

Next they will try and find a way to "leverage" the public parking lot from the county, put a gate on it, then put locks on the public rest rooms.

Then they can provide a private parking area for Watercolor residents, so they can drive their big ass SUVs right to the beach, and never have to leave the comfort of air conditioning. { I don't know how many times I have seen B.A. SUVs with Seaside parking stickers parked in that lot.}

Or maybe they will build another $500+ dollar a night Inn on the property.

The possibilities are endless for Watercolor to add value to the {their} community at the expense of Walton county taxpayers.

These are sad times indeed.
Sad times? The county passed an ordinance that abandoned the easement at issue. This is all about property rights which I hope my HVAC tech believes in. The county got greedy and this is what happens.
 

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,646
9,496
Sad times? The county passed an ordinance that abandoned the easement at issue. This is all about property rights which I hope my HVAC tech believes in. The county got greedy and this is what happens.

Ordinance number?
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter