NotDeadYet

At the recent BCC meeting, Aug. 11, attorney George Ralph Miller appeared with a new attempt to, once again, change the land use classification of the Seagrove Villas from NPA (neighborhood planning area) to commercial.

I would have pasted the proposed "resolution" here, but it comes up in a PDF. You can access it on the internet by going first to the county's home page, Walton County, FL - Home Page, click on "Your Government", then click on "Agendas and Meetings" and select the drop down box for Commission Agendas. Choose Aug 11, and when the file comes up, you can click on the agenda item at 4:15 pm for attorney Miller and read the "resolution."

I understand from a friend who was at the meeting that Miller told the BCC he did not intend to ask for approval of the resolution, but for the setting of a public hearing about it. There were two attorneys there in opposition, but the BCC did in fact set the hearing to take place at the Sept 22 BCC meeting, which as it happens is in DeFuniak.

Never mind that this has already been settled in court. It just goes to show, like Jay Odom again asking for that state forest corner in Grayton, that some people just never give up. If they can't get there one way, they will try another.

No matter seems to be every fully resolved in this county. It reminds me of that whack the popping heads game in the arcade. You whack one down, and another one pops up somewhere else.

goodwitch58

yeah and did you ever notice how they all look the same?

__________________

"If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them."
George Orwell

Here4Good

I am infuriated by this. I have read this part of the FLUM descriptions, this was CLEARLY INTENTIONALLY designated in this manner so that the land would go BACK to the use which is in place on either side of the motel, in the event the motel was torn down.

This FLUM designation is only 13 years old; SURELY the minutes are still around which contain the discussion.

The resolution is unadultered BS.

They BOUGHT the property KNOWING the FLUM designation and ASSUMING they could get it changed. I suggest they sue whichever commissioner they paid off at the time to insure the designation could be changed for breach of contract.

NotDeadYet

That is the case for many so-called "non-conforming" uses, that the commercial use goes away at some point in the future. But that intent has been subverted time and time again.
Just ask the folks in Peach Creek - that might be the most egregious example, and the case that gave new meaning to the phrase "scrivener's error."

Here4Good

Do tell.

Smiling JOe

actually, to correct a previous statement, the motel doesn't have to be torn down for the land use to revert back to the original use. I believe the LUC calls for the property's value to be destroyed by only 50% or more for the property to revert, regardless of whether it is man or nature who does the damage. The other way for it to revert back to 4 single-family lots is for the current business to cease for a minimum period of 6 months. (Planning Head, Pat Blackshire spoke a while back about this and said that the County has been working under a different book (my words, not her's), saying that they look solely at whether the power to the property is cut off, in order to determine with the actual business has stopped for 6 months.

I believe Seagrove Villas business stopped for more than six months, and therefore should currently be reverted to four single-family lots, but I am not a lawyer. Seems that there is more than one reason why this property should not continue as a commericial use, and those are based on existing land use codes, which were in place before the property was purchased by NatureWalk.

__________________

Here4Good

Actually, I did not say that the only way for it to revert was if the motel was torn down. I said that if it is torn down, the land use reverts.

NotDeadYet

I just love it how the county makes up their own rules. So this facilitates the continuance of a non-conformity virtually indefinately, as long as someone can afford to pay a minimum electric bill and maybe keep a light or two burning. Confirms my earlier statement about subverting the intent of the code.

Smiling JOe

I don't believe that actually turning on a light was a requirement -- just the disconnection of power for six months.

__________________

wrobert

From what I have seen, actual laws in this county are irrelevant. We pay an attorney to fight for what the BCC feels is needed. Totally ignoring laws, codes, and rules. Almost like an Attorney Full Employment rule or something to that effect.

__________________

idlewind

Come on Wrobert, you too? I expect most of this anti-personal property stuff, but from you, I do not get it. This property has been commercial for over 50 years, can you explain to me why the propety owners should not have a right to update and upscale their COMMERCIAL property?

NotDeadYet

Another first for SoWal! wrobert and I found something we can agree on!

NotDeadYet

If this is your position, then logically you must oppose all zoning laws. This property was not commercial for 50 years, because we have not had zoning in this county for 50 years. (Technically, it's not "zoning," it's land use designations, a sort of hybrid form of zoning.) If you take the position that any use that predates zoning should remain that way forever, then you can really never have effective zoning except for vacant parcels, and even then some of the owners of the vacant parcels would complain they weren't getting the same benefits as owners of already developed property, depending on how they wanted to develop their property.
The proposed plans for this site are way more than "updating and upscaling." Furthermore, the code (which is the law) prohibits enlargement of a non-conformity, which is what Seagrove Villas is, and there are other prohibitions as well as noted above by SJ. So that's why, because it's the law, as affirmed by the courts. I thought you believed in the rule of law?

Beach Runner

I am so confused by all of this, I see the signs that are counterintuitive to the posts that I read on this message board. Maybe sleep will help.


And another issue in the 'hood. What is going on at the faux Southern plantation facade to the north of Market Cafe that has a Hotel Viridian sign in front? How did I miss the scoop on that? I mean, it went from gourmet grocer to church to bank to whatever. I dunno,

__________________

Here4Good

Because the FLUM doesn't allow it. See, that's why you have an attorney when you're buying a multi-million dollar piece of property which you intend to tear down and modify.

If you bought a house on 1.5 acres, would you assuime that it was okay to tear it down and build six houses? How about 10 houses? There are houses built around here on less than .1 of an acre, so that must be OK. It's still a residential use, right?

Of course not, you'd check that before you bought the house, not sue the county because you didn't do your due diligence.

coondog

The property has been de-linked from Naturewalk, hence the prior owner's plan to develop a massive Beach Club development is no longer going to happen. A foreclosure judgment has been issued and the lender is simply seeking to obtain acknowledgment for what the property is, and what is has been for 50 years - a commerical property.

Smiling JOe

Your statement makes me wonder... Maybe Nature Walk's attorney continues to fight this for fear of being sued, himself, by Nature Walk, for letting them go through with the purchase of what he should have known wouldn't work. That would make sense. Plus, the more he fights this, the more he can bill NatureWalk.

__________________

NotDeadYet

Phooey, I don't think so. There was a court decision, two in fact. You are saying this isn't good enough for the lender??

Smiling JOe

Please show me in the County Land Use Code or FLUM (Future Land Use Map) where it states that this property is commercial property. Plat Book 2, page 50, specifically shows this property as four single-family residential lots, when it was developed by Cube and Louise McGee in 1950. See attached, and if you don't know what you are looking at, the subject property is the area darkened area in the lower right corner, indicated on the plat as lots 14,15,16,17, of Block 7. So, even though the Land Use Code hasn't been around 50 years, the plat shows the original intent of the use of the property, which is the same as the Land Use Code -- Single Family Residential (four lots). I'll add that the property is surrounded by the Gulf to the south and single family residences on the other three sides. It is smack-dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

Attached Images

seagrove villas plat.jpg (137.2 KB, 11 views)

__________________

coondog

The Court decision dealt with the County's improperly approving the development of the Beach Club, not the fact that the property has been a commercial use for over 50 years.

idlewind

I do not oppose zoning, I oppose using laws to take property rights long established. This property has been commercial as long as I can remember. To attempt to change reality by using a ordinance is a "taking" and is unconstitutional. Zoning should be used to codify reality and to promote like uses in the future.
I fully support the rule of law. I believe the ordinance takes an established right from the property owner and is therefore illegal.

Lake View Too

First of all, sleep might help, poor dear. On number two, the group that has been trying to get the Viridian Hotel going, have always owned the grocery/bank/church colonial facade. They simply moved their office from the old Seagrove Realty building into the upstairs of that building. Goodnite ??

__________________
My mind tends to wander... but fortunately, it's so weak, it doesn't get very far...

Smiling JOe

two words would settle all of this ... Transect Planning

__________________

NotDeadYet

No, you are wrong. The court decision dealt with whether or not the deed restrictions, or lack thereof, meant that something could be developed that conflicted with the code. The ruling made it clear that these lots are subject to the LDC and the Comp Plan. The judge said that a reading of the language on the deeds indicated no specific covenants or restrictions, and that the county misinterpreted this and departed from established legal principles.

coondog

When the comprehensive land use plan was last approved, the County neglected to include this parcel as commercial, even though it had, and has been used as commercial for over 50 years. It's called a scrivners error, which is what they are trying to correct, nothing sinister about it.

Smiling JOe

So wrong. They didn't map it as commercial, because it sits smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood and was designed to be single family lots, not commercial, according to the plat, dated 1950. It is noted as a non-conforming use, which will revert back to the original intention of the use, four single-family residential lots. If there was an error or oversight, it was when they first built a motel on that sight. Of course, there were only a small number of people living here, then, so they didn't have to do things by the book. (they still fail to do so even today, as shown by this ridiculousness.)

My guess is that you work for the attorney representing the property, hoping to get a short list of everything to address in your presentation to the County.

__________________

jdarg

I just saw a funny but true quote by a friend on Facebook-

"Nothing says 1950's America like 30 miles of highway zoned for anything".

I am sure we can all think of many areas that fits this description!

totally

If I understand correctly, the court decision was based on the little known House Bill known as MRTA, which extinguishes covenents or deed restrictions which are older than 30 years. In this case, the land use category of Residential Preservation in the Land Development Code recognizes existing covenants or platted subdivisions which have been substantially built out, etc., but the MRTA act virtually takes precedence over this provision. Furthermore, one must look at the definition of 'Schrivenor's Error' as it pertains to land use. Also, land use cannot be changed by resolution, only by ordinance.

MRBS

My husband and I spent a GLORIOUS week at Seagrove Villas recently, before the deluge. I was looking for a place within walking distance of the rest of our family. The main house, which our family has enjoyed renting since 1969, just can't hold us all anymore. Once I read here that The Villas had reopened, it was the obvious and delightful solution. Delightful because I always liked them, the view, the cool architecture of the cottages and their sunrooms, the family atmosphere, the rompable green grass, grills, hammocks and the pool (which the original owner kindly used to let me as a kiddie swim in when the Gulf had spinach in it). Obvious because they were only 50 walking steps from the rest of the family and because I feared this might be our last chance to stay there, from what I have read on this site.

Now I am going to preach to the choir. We loved it. It was perfect for our needs - old time Florida. Now, like a lot of people, I'm a fan of over the top luxury accomodations with all the bells and whistles when we can (rarely) afford it, but cottages at The Villas, as is, are way cool. I had a smile on my face and on the inside the whole time. No kidding! From what I have read here and researched, I think the Bank owns it or must have a forbearance agreement with the Nature Walk developer so that it will not foreclose. Somebody decided to spend some money to spruce up the place and get it running again. We thank you. Keep The Villas. Any other neighborhood would be lucky to have such a cool place. All destination neighborhoods need a place like this. Let your commissioners know that out of towners LOVE The Seagrove Villas. There are oodles of nice lookalike and feelalike places on 30A now, but this is a unique property.

Now, having said all that I sure hope this scrivener's error argument gets quashed and squashed. Zoning fights are hard and mind numbingly tedious and, as the plaintiffs in the initial round surely know, cost big bucks to win, and even to lose. I hope those in the local community who would like to see this kind of special place preserved and improved (as is) will have the time, energy and the opportunity to voice their opposition to this sorry argument at the September 22 meeting, and at all points thereafter. Do be sure and let us know what we might could do to help.

Is this matter on the 9/22 BCC agenda? Hmmmm???? I see that the Commission Minutes for the 8/11 meeting (where this resolution was introduced) are not yet posted (but those for the subsequent meeting are).

Missing Seagrove.

Attached Images

Villas.Neon.002.jpg (93.4 KB, 1 views)

miznotebook

For anyone who is following this issue, the hearing on it did not take place on at the Sept. 22 BCC meeting in DeFuniak as planned. Someone in the county legal department said staff were not able to get the required legal notice about the hearing placed in time. The hearing is now planned for Oct. 13 as part of that county commission regular meeting. The location is the South Walton Annex.

MRBS

Thank you MizNotebook. Where does BCC post its legal notices? In our neck of the backwards woods a public hearing usually precedes a body decision. The decision may be delayed a time or two but eventually it occurs. One previous poster said that a zoning change is not effected by resolution but rather by ordinance. Curious as to what the public hearing is for. Does the "correction" (aghast) of an alleged scrivener's error rise to the level of a zoning change, or is it just "administrative housekeeping"? What is the Peach Creek story referenced prior?

I'm sorry I didn't include this in my previous post but please know that in our crowd we had opinions from people of all ages and from points far and wide who came to see our private quarters at Villa 2 at Seagrove Villas Motel: 86 years of age to 25, from California, Oregon, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia who ALL were smitten with the Villas. Most all opined that they could live in Villa 2 full time. I'm all about the property being enjoyed as-is, or being improved as-is (though our unit required nothing; I felt like we were in a movie set), but being replaced by a fancy fancy: not so much. Did I mention how it melted my heart to walk by another villa's sunporch and see a mother spoon feeding her baby in the warmth of the sunshine one morning? How on Sunday before Labor Day all the grills were fired up at twilight with families preparing a feast? We were so lucky!

Thanks again for a letting us long time fans and appreciative tourists catch a glimpse of your life in SoWal. Special place.

Attached Images

DSCN0213.jpg (97.9 KB, 3 views)

miznotebook

MRBS, maybe someone else can draw from their memory bank and knowledge of quasijudicial proceedings and provide a better response to some of your questions than I seem to be coming up with right now, but I can answer part of what you are asking. The legal notices appear in The DeFuniak Herald/Beach Breeze, a local newspaper. If you live out of the area, it is possible to get a mail subscription or you can view the legal notices on the newspaper Web site, www.defuniakherald.com. One way to go there is by clicking on the newspaper's link on Sowal at the bottom of the new posts on the right hand side of the home page.
On the Peach Creek reference, I do recall that the owner of some property in that area made the argument that there had been a scrivener's error on the county future land use map affecting his land. This was part of an effort to get approval to put an asphalt plant on the property. His request was for a land use change, I believe, and the county commission turned him down. However he later appealed and won in federal court, which led to a reversal of the BCC decision.
I've never had the chance to stay at Seagrove Villas but always admire the view of that property and its uniqueness when I go by. It's great to hear you had such a good time on your recent visit. I think quite a few people in the community and other visitors are fans of the property as well.