Which Beaches are private and which are public?

[Smiling JOe]

I guess what really throws me is how someone could purchase something and see people out back and then begin to complain about the people out back.

I really wish someone could explain it to me to help me see the other side of this debate. I would or will try to be very objective but for 2 years have not heard one argument that made sense to me.

The best argument I have heard has been about the density switch north of the beach in Blue Mountain. When the buyer bought he had no idea that a large development would happen north of him and shuttle all the owners to the beach near his home. I can somewhat understand his concern and issue but still do not understand how he could not understand the customary use issue making his point mute.

I feel the claim of a private beach is false and misleading. We shall soon see.

Bobby J, I hear your points. However, with the TDC (tourist development council) advertising our Award Winning beaches in national publications, trying to draw people in from the entire south east USA, beachFront owners cannot be so short sighted to think about only the density changes on the tiny area north of 30A in South Walton. Surely, they recognize that tourism depends upon a much larger draw of people coming to those very beaches which they try to claim for themselves. They also must realize that the new PCB airport will even expand the TDC's marketing area as far north as New England.

When I walk down the beach, I don't stop and pull out a legal description from the Clerk of Courts office, to see if the trash I'm about to collect is on private property. The biggest issue for these deeded owners, IMO, is that with people, comes trash. We must all do more than our share of keeping the beaches beautiful, and that includes collecting and disposing of waste, which isn't our own. I see many people actively involved in that, and it makes me happy. I hope more people will take lessons from those who are setting the good example.

 

[Smiling JOe]

As I have said before, I just do not believe that everybody understood the customary use thing. It should be explained to potential buyers just in case. This will make for much better relations going forward. What we as long time residents take as a given is not always obvious to the newcomer. I am for a free and open to all beach situation, but let's stop the crazy platting of lots that invite controversy, or at the very least , hard feelings. I am just saying that the beach homeowner does not always have horns and an effort to work our differences out in an agreeable way will be to everyones benefit. I hate to have to be ill with our neighbors!

With traditional easements, they are noted on surveys. It sure would make things much more simple if the lower beach area of the properties were also noted on surveys, then everyone would have a clear and precise knowledge. Without this, a property owner, who's property boundary is the mean high water mark, has no idea where that boundary is on any given day without daily surveys, because it changes daily, as it is a 13 year moving average.

I know there most Gulf front owners are wonderful people, and we are talking about only a few, but the issue of Customary Use on our beaches, will affect every inch of beach in South Walton in some capacity. I certainly don't intend to portray all beach front owners as some evil, greedy bat-urds, as most are not that way in any capacity.

 

[NotDeadYet]

I have not read the plan, and I don't live in the Blue Mtn neighborhood. This is on the BCC agenda for Feb. 24. Posting here because there is some interesting language included - see the phrase about the intent of the plan. Anyone out there know what it means for the public's right to use the beaches in Blue Mtn??

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

 

[BeachSiO2]

I have not read the plan, and I don't live in the Blue Mtn neighborhood. This is on the BCC agenda for Feb. 24. Posting here because there is some interesting language included - see the phrase about the intent of the plan. Anyone out there know what it means for the public's right to use the beaches in Blue Mtn??

" 1.BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACHFRONT (BMB-1) NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (NP.BMB-1) ? AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.03.02 OF THE WALTON COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT THE BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACHFRONT (BMB-1) NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AS AN OVERLAY DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING A DEFINED BOUNDARY; ESTABLISHING THAT THE INTENT OF THE PLAN IS TO PRESERVE THE BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACHFRONT TITLE AND CHARACTER, PAST DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND LAND USES, AND THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DESIGNATION THAT IT NOW HAS AS A RESIDENTIAL PRESERVATION AREA (RPA) IN THE WALTON COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) SERIES; ESTABLISHING THAT THE INTENT OF THE PLAN IS TO PRESERVE THE BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACHES FOR USE BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH SUBDIVISION NO. 1, ESTABLISHING THAT THE USE IS A PERMISSIVE ONE AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE ABUSED; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR VESTED TITLE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS REGULATING NEIGHBORHOOD BEACH ACCESSES; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM LOT SIZES, SETBACKS, BUILD-TO-LINES, LOT COVERAGE, BUILDING HEIGHT, ALLOWABLE DENSITIES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR USE MIX FOR COMMERCIAL AND WORKPLACE BY SIZE AND LOCATION; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR STREET WIDTH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, VEGETATION, ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR AMENDMENT; ESTABLISHING A PROVISION PROHIBITING THIS PLAN FROM BEING SUBJECT TO ANY PART OF, OR TO ANY OTHER PLAN FOR BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH SUBDIVISION NO. 1; PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION OF THE BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACHFRONT (BMB-1) NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AS APPENDIX NP-2 TO THE WALTON COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

My understanding is that this would limit the use of the beach to owners (and guests I would assume) within the platted subdivision, and also limits the physical access structures to same. It also states that the right to use the beach is a permissive one granted by the gulf-front owners to their neighbors within the subdivision and not a customary use. This would be for the properties between Redfish Lake and the Blue Mountain Beach Regional Access located at the end of CR 83.

 

[NotDeadYet]

Thanks.
Wow, that is amazing. The beginning of the end.

 

[Matt J]

So is anyone going to fight this so we can hear from blue mt beach vagrant?

 

[Miss Kitty]

So is anyone going to fight this so we can hear from blue mt beach vagrant?

Calling John R!

 

[Smiling JOe]

My understanding is that this would limit the use of the beach to owners (and guests I would assume) within the platted subdivision, and also limits the physical access structures to same. It also states that the right to use the beach is a permissive one granted by the gulf-front owners to their neighbors within the subdivision and not a customary use. This would be for the properties between Redfish Lake and the Blue Mountain Beach Regional Access located at the end of CR 83.

I don't want to rehash all the crap I learned about the actual ownership of the beach for that stretch, which all can read on the actual deed, if you actually read in depth about the developer dissolving and reversion of the ownership...yada, yada, yada.

However, Customary Use by the public is an entirely different beast, than rights to ownership. My guess is that some influential owners in that subdivision, are trying to prevent users/owners of Redfish Village from crowding the beach in that area.

I've been using that beach for years, and never been asked to move or leave. Essentially, that is what Customary Use is all about. The public using the property.

 

[NotDeadYet]

I've been using that beach for years, and never been asked to move or leave.

Looks to me like that might change. :shock:

 

[Smiling JOe]

Not unless they want to call the cops and my me and the other frequent users arrested and taken to court. I'm getting a little tired of the mess, and maybe it is time for someone to get arrested for quietly enjoying the beach.