state dri enforcement of sandestin

**raven** · 06-14-2007, 08:36 PM

it's a new day. i doubt sandestin will be the last.

http://www.waltonsun.com/present/driftwood.html

**OnMackBayou** · 06-14-2007, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by raven

it's a new day. i doubt sandestin will be the last.

http://www.waltonsun.com/present/driftwood.html

Will be the last what?

The ultimate point of this is that the residents of Driftwood Estates want to "break through" the Sandestin gates for access in and out of their neighborhood.

They have been fighting for this with Sandestin for a long time. Obviously, the gated community of Sandestin does not want or need the added congestion from the residents of Driftwood Estates.

**beachmouse** · 06-14-2007, 09:51 PM

The question of who is contributing to the drainage problems is currently the more pressing issue. Under pressure from the state, Walton County recently issued a short (but possibly to be extended) moratorium on new home building permits in Driftwood until they can come up with a plan to address and pay for the ongoing drainage issues.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/6543/

**raven** · 06-15-2007, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by OnMackBayou

Will be the last what?

The ultimate point of this is that the residents of Driftwood Estates want to "break through" the Sandestin gates for access in and out of their neighborhood.

They have been fighting for this with Sandestin for a long time. Obviously, the gated community of Sandestin does not want or need the added congestion from the residents of Driftwood Estates.

and, obviously, sandestin should have thought of that before including driftwood in its development plan submitted to the state

i'm sure they "don't want congestion" but they wouldn't have it if they had followed the original development plan submitted. instead, they just kept building and building. so the congestion is rather their problem.

it seems like while the county has been happy to give them whatever they want, the state is demanding that legalities and safety issues be enforced. as the letter says...they have created a safety issues for those who need to evacuate. i am grateful that someone is concerned about safety and human lives instead of just the almighty dollar. ahem.

while it's a shame that a state agency had to enforce the issue, glad to see they've done it as nobody in the county seemed to care about the evacuation issue. i'm certain for a development who has had deaths from shark attacks and STILL don't have a lifeguard that this is a new concept, but human lives should always be of primary concern.

**Surf4play** · 06-15-2007, 01:38 PM

This is mainly an issue with the development of Driftwood Estates and NOT Sandestin. This is why the the county has stopped development at Driftwood Estates (again) and NOT Sandestin.

The original DRI included Driftwood Estates because Sandestin owned this property at the time of filing. When Sandestin sold the Driftwood parcel to another developer, the responsibility for properly insuring drainage for the Driftwood Estates parcel passed to the Driftwood developer. Sandestin has been in compliance with the drainage requirements for its development and does not have a similar drainage problem. This is why the approximately $3 million cost of improving Driftwood Estates drainage is the responsibility of the Driftwood Estates developer and not Sandestin(there doesn't seem to be too much dispute about this).

The alternate access road to Driftwood Estates (via Sandestin) is a seperate issue. Once Driftwood Estates solves its drainage problem, the safety aspects related to flooding roads in Driftwood Estates would seem to be solved, thus becoming a non-issue.

Concerning allowing access to Sandestin roads to Driftwood residents, it should be remembered that maintenance of these roads (along with Security, access gates, etc.) is paid for by Sandestin residents (and not Walton County). If its ultimately agreed to allow Driftwood owners access to these roads, then they will have to pay for them (just as Sandestin owners do now) via increased Driftwood Estates Homeowner assessments.

**Smiling JOe** · 06-15-2007, 04:19 PM

All of it is one big mess of a situation. From what I understand, Sandestin never had a permit to build the wall, blocking off the road to Driftwood Estates. Driftwood Estates Original Plats, show that road, which is now blocked by Sandestin, being open. The County wouldn't have allowed a 700 unit sub-division to have only one means of egress and ingress, especially when that one road is known to flood, during ordinary rainfall. The opening of the road is a safety issue for all of those who live in Driftwood Estates. With the roads of Sandestin being such a clusterphuk, I doubt many of the people living in Driftwood, would use the road, unless the other road was flooded, or they worked in Sandestin's development.

**raven** · 06-15-2007, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by Surf4play

This is mainly an issue with the development of Driftwood Estates and NOT Sandestin. This is why the the county has stopped development at Driftwood Estates (again) and NOT Sandestin.

The original DRI included Driftwood Estates because Sandestin owned this property at the time of filing. When Sandestin sold the Driftwood parcel to another developer, the responsibility for properly insuring drainage for the Driftwood Estates parcel passed to the Driftwood developer. Sandestin has been in compliance with the drainage requirements for its development and does not have a similar drainage problem. This is why the approximately $3 million cost of improving Driftwood Estates drainage is the responsibility of the Driftwood Estates developer and not Sandestin(there doesn't seem to be too much dispute about this).

The alternate access road to Driftwood Estates (via Sandestin) is a seperate issue. Once Driftwood Estates solves its drainage problem, the safety aspects related to flooding roads in Driftwood Estates would seem to be solved, thus becoming a non-issue.

Concerning allowing access to Sandestin roads to Driftwood residents, it should be remembered that maintenance of these roads (along with Security, access gates, etc.) is paid for by Sandestin residents (and not Walton County). If its ultimately agreed to allow Driftwood owners access to these roads, then they will have to pay for them (just as Sandestin owners do now) via increased Driftwood Estates Homeowner assessments.

while sandestin sold driftwood, they never altered the dri plan approved by the state. while you can cajole the county. you can't mess with the state. sandestin should have proceeded in good faith before the sale altering their dri with the state, they declined to act responsibly.

**Surf4play** · 06-16-2007, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by raven

while sandestin sold driftwood, they never altered the dri plan approved by the state. while you can cajole the county. you can't mess with the state. sandestin should have proceeded in good faith before the sale altering their dri with the state, they declined to act responsibly.

Even if the DRI had been updated at the time of the sale, it would still be the responsibility of the Driftwood developer and Walton County (and not Sandestin) to make sure that a proper drainage infrastructure is implemented for the size of the DRIFTWOOD development..... with or without the updated paperwork being in place with the state at the time of the sale.

**raven** · 06-18-2007, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Surf4play

Even if the DRI had been updated at the time of the sale, it would still be the responsibility of the Driftwood developer and Walton County (and not Sandestin) to make sure that a proper drainage infrastructure is implemented for the size of the DRIFTWOOD development..... with or without the updated paperwork being in place with the state at the time of the sale.

i'm afraid not. if you actually read the paperwork, sandestin still has responsibility to provide an additional evacuation route regardless of who they sold driftwood to because of the submitted development plans.

**Surf4play** · 06-19-2007, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by raven

i'm afraid not. if you actually read the paperwork, sandestin still has responsibility to provide an additional evacuation route regardless of who they sold driftwood to because of the submitted development plans.

Its not as straight-forward as you imply (hence why it has dragged out so long). There are multiple legal documents which all sides can point to related to this alternate entrance issue.

In any event, the drainage issues that Driftwood Estates are having are exacerbating this issue. This is due to Driftwood not putting in place the proper drainage infrastructure in the first place and then continuing to expand this development (which has been temporarily halted). Solve the drainage problem, manage development, and this becomes a non-issue.

**Smiling JOe** · 06-19-2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Surf4play

In any event, the drainage issues that Driftwood Estates are having are exacerbating this issue. This is due to Driftwood not putting in place the proper drainage infrastructure in the first place and then continuing to expand this development (which has been temporarily halted). Solve the drainage problem, manage development, and this becomes a non-issue.

I don't think that is true, because the existing road, outside of Driftwood Estates, is the road which is known to flood during normal rain. Drainage inside the development will help, but it will not make the problem go away.

**Surf4play** · 06-19-2007, 01:32 PM

If just normal rains (and not extreme weather like tropical storms, etc.) are causing flooding on the roads leading up to Driftwood Estates subdivision, then this is a county issue. Walton County needs to solve this as well as part of an overall solution.

**raven** · 06-19-2007, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Surf4play

Its not as straight-forward as you imply (hence why it has dragged out so long). There are multiple legal documents which all sides can point to related to this alternate entrance issue.

In any event, the drainage issues that Driftwood Estates are having are exacerbating this issue. This is due to Driftwood not putting in place the proper drainage infrastructure in the first place and then continuing to expand this development (which has been temporarily halted). Solve the drainage problem, manage development, and this becomes a non-issue.

in fact, it as "dragged out" so long because sandestin, local govt and code enforcement did not address complaints seriously. since driftwood went to the state level the response was quite swift. and i think you will find that once people who comply with legislation are on the case that will be the status quo henceforth.

while the drainage issue may fall on driftwood, that does not eliminate the evacuation onus on sandestin as a dri.