Children playing in Damaged House on Dune [Archive]

Paula

03-22-2006, 08:02 AM

I saw some young kids (preteens/early teens) playing in and under a very damaged house that was hanging over a dune. Are home owners required to take down/fix their houses that are hanging dangerously over the dunes or can they leave them there? Can the county require someone to remove their house if it's a danger to others? This house is way beyond repair. Is there a particular official that I should contact to let them know?

John R

03-22-2006, 08:05 AM

i think a call to either the building dept. or the health dept. would get you to the right people.

jr

Smiling JOe

03-22-2006, 08:18 AM

Paula, you mean like these two homes in Blue Mtn Bch, one with 4 cinder blocks hanging from a wire for over 6 months?

Paula

03-22-2006, 08:34 AM

Thanks, JR and SJ. It's at Seacrest Beach (used to be a ranch house) before you get to the Alys Beach area (about 1/2 mile before you get to Alys Beach if you're coming from Seagrove). But it looks like the photos you showed and imagine kids fooling around in there. Scary. Not only are the kids at risk (I'm assuming they weren't the only people who decided to crawl around in the house so far) but it must be a major liability for the owner if anyone gets hurt.

Smiling JOe

03-22-2006, 08:59 AM

Cork On the Ocean

03-22-2006, 09:13 AM

I'd call code enforcement Kevin Harkevin 850-267-1955.

beachmouse

03-22-2006, 10:15 AM

The county definitely can require the owner to remove an unrepairable house. Last November, a family friend got exactly that sort of letter from Walton County telling her that her totaled home on the north shore of Choctaw Bay had to be demolished in 30 days, or the county would do it for her, and place a hella lien against the property to pay for that service. (she had been having a really hard time finding a properly licensed demo company, and had even asked the fire department to burn it down, but they couldn't because they couldn't do a safeproper hazmat sweep beforehand. She finally found a demo company about a week before the county deadline)

Paula

03-22-2006, 01:20 PM

Thanks everyone for the information. The guy who owns the home has had some real troubles other than the home lately, but that shouldn't result in a child (or anyone) getting hurt. And, of course, if someone gets hurt it makes it worse for him as well. So, I'll definitely follow-up. The home is unrepairable and simply a hazard. It was built so long ago that the cost of removing it is probably a very smart part of what the property itself is worth, so finances shouldn't really be a big problem (relatively speaking, of course).

This could be one of those situations where everyone is thinking someone else is taking care of the problem, so no one is taking care of it!

goodwitch58

03-22-2006, 10:56 PM

Allifunn

03-22-2006, 11:52 PM

http://www.cardboardcutouts.com/0301.gif is this you goodwitch?? I love Glinda!! sorry for the tangent...I just could not resist!

Paula

03-23-2006, 08:40 AM

It might be a good idea just to call the cops...might get faster response than calling a code enforcement. Especially might get the kids out of harms way or at least notify their parents they were in harms way.

I agree that would have been wise to do at the time. Just didn't think of it then but will in the future. And two of us on this board called code enforcement yesterday thanks to this board so let's hope the house gets taken down soon -- ideally before the summer vacationers come.

Donna

03-23-2006, 01:59 PM

By the time a typical code enforcement officer gets to the site, the trespassers are long gone. These code enforcement officers have a backlog of complaints and violations equal to years of workload sometimes. The more timely thing is to call the Sheriff and report a trespassing, one where the safety of minors is at risk. They will usually "blue-light" it right out there and take the kids home to their parents, with a stern warning.

Paula, I have had the same question about some properties in our area. They were red-tagged for awhile, but now appear uninhabited but still standing. In other words, no longer condemned for some reason, but still dangerous. I have also seen kids climbing the dunes up towards the houses. On occasion, I have approached the kids and warned them off the dunes by explaining that the dunes are environmentally sensitive. Most of these children have been very cooperative and courteous. They know about environmental issues from school. And Southern children are usually taught respect for their elders. If we did this in CA, the likely response would be a lively demonstration of the CA State bird!

Parents would thank you, I would hope.

Paula

03-23-2006, 02:35 PM

Thanks, Donna. I hope these houses hanging over dunes don't end up staying like that until a child/adult gets hurt or killed and then action is taken to condemn them and tear them down. In the meantime, we'll keep our eyes open and talk to parents/kids who may be too near these places. I'd stay as far away from them as possible. And there are several of them along 30A (I'm quite the safety queen so I tend to notice these things!).

John

03-23-2006, 02:56 PM

Smiling JOe

03-23-2006, 03:11 PM

John

03-23-2006, 03:56 PM

Yes, "repair" is what I meant.

Camp Creek Kid

03-23-2006, 06:07 PM

I suspect that these houses are not torn down immediately because they may not get approval to build a new structure in the exact location (on top of dune). However, if you "rebuild", then you are grandfathered in and are OK regarding location of structure.

For those that know these things, is my theory correct?

This is not the case with this house. It was damaged during Ivan and has been neglected since then. Dennis undermined the foundation, tore off the side facing the gulf and now the house is literally falling onto the beach. Part of the roof finally collapsed this week.

There is no possible way that this house could be rebuilt in the same location.

Paula, I feel foolish about not taking more action on this situation. Thanks and let me know if we can help.

Paula

03-23-2006, 09:57 PM

This is not the case with this house. It was damaged during Ivan and has been neglected since then. Dennis undermined the foundation, tore off the side facing the gulf and now the house is literally falling onto the beach. Part of the roof finally collapsed this week.

There is no possible way that this house could be rebuilt in the same location.

Paula, I feel foolish about not taking more action on this situation. Thanks and let me know if we can help.

CCK:
I'm sure we all do the same thing -- I figured someone must be doing something about it. So far, two of us have called the number listed in a previous post on this thread and mentioned it, so it would probably help if you did so as well. If nothing seems done within a month, since you're there you'll notice and could call to see what actions have been taken. I'll be there in early May and can call again if no action has been taken.

I'm sure the same problem with these collapsing houses is taking place in several places along 30A. They're interesting to look at and give us an interesting perspective on the power of mother nature, but they are now getting undermined to the point where they are dangerous and there will be many, many children and teenagers exploring the beaches from now through August.

Thanks for follow-up CCK!

Camp Creek Kid

03-23-2006, 11:13 PM

CCK:
I'm sure we all do the same thing -- I figured someone must be doing something about it. So far, two of us have called the number listed in a previous post on this thread and mentioned it, so it would probably help if you did so as well. If nothing seems done within a month, since you're there you'll notice and could call to see what actions have been taken. I'll be there in early May and can call again if no action has been taken.

I'm sure the same problem with these collapsing houses is taking place in several places along 30A. They're interesting to look at and give us an interesting perspective on the power of mother nature, but they are now getting undermined to the point where they are dangerous and there will be many, many children and teenagers exploring the beaches from now through August.

Thanks for follow-up CCK!

We'll do what we can--I think Mr. CCK knows the right people AND he has a backhoe ;-) .

Donna

03-24-2006, 05:43 AM

Many of these houses are what planners call legal nonconforming, meaning they could not be approved under the current zoning and other regulations. This status means the structures can remain indefinitely in their existing "footprint," but cannot be enlarged and sometimes they cannot be moved. If the house is destroyed (for any reason), it can be rebuilt in that footprint. There is an assumption with such structures and uses that eventually they will cease to exist and the underlying land will then be developed only under the current ordinances and regulations. If the structure or use is abandoned for a continuous period of time (usually six months), then the legal nonconforming status is lost and cannot be re-established.

Legal nonconforming properties should always have an accurate survey so that the footprint and size of the structure is well defined in an official document. Without a survey or an existing structure, it can be difficult to prove the "footprint." Many planners claim they have never seen a request for legal nonconforming status that actually meets the burden of proof, which can be quite cumbersome. A survey would be the solution, not that expensive and could save the owners a lot of delay and cost should they reconstruct.

I am currently working on establishing a legal nonconforming status for a vineyard house whose owner has lived in it her entire life of 80+ years. In the end, the only evidence the County would accept was a piece of stone from the original foundation that just happened to be date impressioned 1939. which means it predates the County zoning. Without recognition of this status, the house would have to be demolished and she would have been unable to live on her ancestral property.

And doesn't that just make you want to be a planner? :roll:

Miss Kitty

03-24-2006, 06:05 AM

from Donna

And doesn't that just make you want to be a planner? :roll:

:lolabove: ...I just hope you were planning on going to bed soon!!!!

Quite an interesting story though. I still don't understand why the owners are allowed to let what is left of their houses remain standing (or is that falling?). :idontno:

Smiling JOe

03-24-2006, 07:23 AM

Many of these houses are what planners call legal nonconforming, meaning they could not be approved under the current zoning and other regulations. This status means the structures can remain indefinitely in their existing "footprint," but cannot be enlarged and sometimes they cannot be moved. If the house is destroyed (for any reason), it can be rebuilt in that footprint. There is an assumption with such structures and uses that eventually they will cease to exist and the underlying land will then be developed only under the current ordinances and regulations. If the structure or use is abandoned for a continuous period of time (usually six months), then the legal nonconforming status is lost and cannot be re-established.

Legal nonconforming properties should always have an accurate survey so that the footprint and size of the structure is well defined in an official document. Without a survey or an existing structure, it can be difficult to prove the "footprint." Many planners claim they have never seen a request for legal nonconforming status that actually meets the burden of proof, which can be quite cumbersome. A survey would be the solution, not that expensive and could save the owners a lot of delay and cost should they reconstruct.
Donna, your description given above is the way I understand Walton County's non-conforming uses too. One note of difference is that a non-conforming improvement can be enlarged via building upward, if within the height limits, but the footprint must remain equal size or smaller.

TooFarTampa

03-24-2006, 07:35 AM

Donna, your description given above is the way I understand Walton County's non-conforming uses too. One note of difference is that a non-conforming improvement can be enlarged via building upward, if within the height limits, but the footprint must remain equal size or smaller.

But why on earth would someone be committed to rebuilding on a footprint on a portion of the land that is already undermined? Do some people really think that a retaining wall or seawall will make it all better, then they can just rebuild in the same spot?

Smiling JOe

03-24-2006, 07:40 AM

But why on earth would someone be committed to rebuilding on a footprint on a portion of the land that is already undermined? Do some people really think that a retaining wall or seawall will make it all better, then they can just rebuild in the same spot?Yes they do think like that, and they do rebuild or at least repair on that spot of loose sand.

Paula

03-24-2006, 08:10 AM

Thanks CCK. I know Mr. CCK gets the job done! (and done well). You know I'm a happy camper -- get it "camper" :funn: (It's not really that funny, I just wanted to use that smiley). Sadly, I had to google backhoe to figure out what that is.

And thanks, Donna, for the explanation -- useful and makes sense.

My hunch is that the person doesn't plan to rebuild in the same footprint anyway (It was a great view and a nice small 50s - 70s ranch home but the building itself wasn't worth much compared to the property). The property is worth so much that whatever he did with that space, he'd come out ahead because I think he owned the property for a long time. He's an older guy who has had some problems lately (sad life stuff that happens as a person ages), but the town can help him along with his decisions by giving him options and deadlines. And perhaps he has grown children who could help him out if he needs help. I heard he's a physician so understanding the issues and problems and trade-offs and sense of responsibility should be well within his grasp. Of course, this is what I think the situation is. I met him once -- a nice guy from what I can tell. Anyway, no reason not to fix the situation as soon as possible before someone (or several people) get hurt or killed. If it wasn't so dangerous, it could be an interesting hurricane tourist attraction because it's fascinating to see.

Smiling JOe

03-24-2006, 08:37 AM

You may not be able to see it in this smaller photo from Blue Mtn Bch posted below, but those boards on the beach are filled with exposed nails. I cannot imagine why debris like this is allowed to remain on the beach for any length of time. The other day, the water was washing up to some of the construction debris and ready to take a few pieces out to see or to be covered in the sand. From now on, I will keep my shoes on when entering the beaches in Blue Mtn., not that my shoes will prevent a nail going through my feet, but make it will help with the smaller stuff. Earlier, I posted the pile of concrete on the beach in Blue Mtn, which looks like a fun place for a kid to climb. I would hate for a kid to get killed after one of the huge chuncks on top fall onto a kid.

WaterColor doesn't even allow this kind of debris to be on the property if it is not in a covered dumpster. Why can't we insist that this dangerous debris be removed on the same day it is torn away from a structure? I wonder if the homeowners even know their personal exposure to risk. :idontno: Easily winnable lawsuits waiting all over the place.

Donna

03-24-2006, 11:31 AM

SJ, correct about height not necessarily being controlled via the legal nonconforming status. The emphasis is on "footprint," which is the at-grade coverage of the structure. However, most ordinances do not allow for increases in sq. ft., either and that would calculate with most significant increases in structural heights.

I agree with your point about the debris. In fact, husband and I had our tetanus shots right before going down last October. You don't have to get a rusty nail to contract tetanus and it is a nasty cootie. Probably a good idea for anyone walking the beaches to have a current innoculation.

And yes, Sueshore, that post was the result of an unusual bout of insomnia. Happens when I have a hearing coming right up. I was embarrased to send it!

katie blue

03-24-2006, 11:40 AM

I spoke with Lee Paul (I believe that was his name?) today in Building and Planning. (Code enforcement referred me to him.) He says that they went out and took pictures the other day when the other calls came in. There are "several people working on this case", he says, but for some reason the house is still not condemned, strangely. He mentioned something about it having to go through the DEP next for the next step, and that it may get held up altogether by turtle season.

Paula, CCK is right, since we were there last in Feb, most of the remaining house/roof has collapsed on itself, crushing what was left of the living room where the children were playing a couple weeks ago. Basically a rubble heap of hazmat from the beach side now. Here's hoping something can be done before more kids arrive.

SHELLY

03-24-2006, 11:55 AM

He mentioned something about it having to go through the DEP next for the next step, and that it may get held up altogether by turtle season.

Will the same hold true for seawall & geotube construction? That excuse weak at best.

Paula

03-24-2006, 07:13 PM

Thanks for all the updates. It's an interesting tourist attraction, as long as everyone stays far away from it (and, as I said, these caved in houses on the dunes are in several places along 30A). That said, there are much better and safe tourist attractions.

katie blue

03-24-2006, 08:31 PM

Well, I'm usually with right there with you Paula, but not on this one I'm afraid ;-). Though I have to give you thumbs up for good attitude! :cool: I find it less interesting, but more what my dad used to call an "attractive nuisance." I guess it's just the latent tree hugger in me. I see all the asbestos and lead paint in that 50-60's era rubble, force of habit.

Sigh. OK, maybe I'm not so much a "latent" tree hugger as a "blatant" one. :lol:

Paula

03-25-2006, 07:55 AM

Oh Katie, I'm completely with you. What I meant by "tourist attraction" (said tongue in cheek) was that as long as the building is standing, people will find it interesting to look at and will get a sense of what Mother Nature can do. I just hope they don't decide to get close to the building. For safety, health, and a nicer looking landscape, I'd like to see it come down as soon as possible. Yesterday wouldn't be too soon for me.

It occurred to me that maybe the owner is ill, but if he is, then someone else in his family should be helping out or at least notifying county officials of the situation and plans.

So, definitely, I'd like to see all collapsed houses on the dunes come down asap.

aquaticbiology

03-25-2006, 08:09 AM

sj, i love your avatars but the eye is totally creeping me out (guess i have some sort of unconscious guilt problems with fish eyes or something)

anyway (shiver), just call the cops, cause if you didn't you could be said to be neglidgeible (?)

Paula

03-25-2006, 08:48 AM

You are correct that we should have called the police/sheriff when we were there and saw the kids playing in and near the house. We just didn't think of it at the time, but certainly would in the future. Ideally this thread will encourage others to call the police/sheriff if they see something similar. I'd certainly want someone to do that if my kids were playing in such a dangerous place.

Paula

04-17-2006, 08:52 PM

Good news. The house discussed on this thread is being demolished and taken away now. :clap_1: Thanks to those of you on this board who gave us the names/contact information of county people to contact and who followed up with phone calls as well. Seems like the owner just needed a little encouragement and there didn't seem to be any resistance since it moved so quickly.

Katie Blue or CCK may have more first-hand information. I got the information that the house was being torn down today from one of the guests who was staying at our cottages.