Redfish Village Beach Access

[edroedrog]

edroedrog I am confused - I took this post above to mean we could call your office to get details but the post below indicates maybe you copied the notice above and it is referring to a county office?



What makes you so sure?



Do you mean the developers?



edroedrog, you seem to be heavily involved and I appreciate your info but can you be more clear about things? What do you mean about LyingFish trailer park???

Come on Buster. I am giving the information to the forum as stated many post back. Yes it is information that RFV does not want anyone to see but it is good stuff.

What makes me so sure. They have hired some of the best to get them out of this and paying big bucks to make it happen.


What is PBA? What is supposed to close next month? Private. Sorry for the confusion I thought this is what it was all about. Of course if you are closing I would be referencing the condos

Thinks Smiling Joe has covered the LyingFish trailer park thingie..

[edroedrog]

I think PBA is his abbreviation for Private Beach Access, but that is a confusing abbrev, because it could also stand for Public Beach Access.

As for the "LyingFish trailer park," he is probably referring to the sales trailer for Redfish Village. I haven't been there and cannot speak to edroedrog's remarks. Maybe he experienced something bad. I do know a few Realtors with H20 Properties who I believe to be the Broker handling the sales, and believe them to be good, honest people. Personally, I have a problem with the sales team getting bashed like they are for promoting a property with plans for a private beach access. The private beach access is beside the point. I am against it personally for several reasons. When an agent takes on selling a development, he or she does so with the nothing more than the developers' good faith in what they are promising. In this particular case, the developer had planned/is planning a private beach access. It is the first thing promoted in their flyers which they handed out, and one of only four ammenities noted for the entire development. I think their intention of having one was/is in good faith. The Broker would have no reason not to think so. It is not a lie to promote your plans for a development, even if the plans change. If the plans do not go through as promoted, that is not a blatent lie. It is a change of plans, for the good or the bad. If the change is a material fact, the seller may be in breach of the contract and the buyers may have a way out without penalty. A lawyer could be helpful in determining whether or not that is the case here. Still, if the Private Beach Access doesn't get permitted, I don't believe the Developer, Broker or their agents were lying if they were legitamately trying to get the private access. In this case, I believe the developer paid well over $8M to procure the two lots in hopes of getting that private access. I believe they are still acting in good faith to do just that. I don't agree with their decision to put in a private access, but that is no reason to say that they are lyers. The developers may have screwed themselves, but their punishment will be in financial terms. This little case should be one for the text books of what not to do. I don't envy them at all, nor do I envy the buyers who intended to sell their units at the closing table. Who will get lucky, is yet to be determined.

I understand if you don't comprehend my point on the developers trying to act in good faith. It does enter a shady bit of gray, but I do believe them to be trying to do what they planned and promoted.

Back to the access, will someone please accurately report on the meeting from this morning?

SJ,
Love your dissertation but facts are facts. They might sound nice at Hot2Sell(AKA H20 Buster) but trust me they are not very truthful. It will all come out in the end and they will look like amateurs too when they get exposed. They might be good at playing dumb but they have invested a lot of time at the trailer park and do want to get the CASH for all their hard work.

SJ-looks like buster reposted my message as to who would have the minutes to the meeting today. Hope the developer bought XMas presents for all involved it might just have helped the situation. Maybe a trip on the private jet to an undisclosed location to help figure this whole quagmire out..

SJ-Just curious... If you know H2O how come you have never been on their site? Maybe you need to go by and ask them how they are doing someday. They might need a few positive things said to them these days.

[COLOR=black]SJ- Do you think for a moment that they knew they did not have PBA(Private Beach Access)? That really scares me to think that the developer was not even being honest with Hot2Sell(AKA H20 Buster). That would make me feel good if the seller agent was representing me and did not have ALL the facts.COLOR]

[Smiling JOe]

SJ,
Love your dissertation but facts are facts. ...

SJ-Just curious... If you know H2O how come you have never been on their site? Maybe you need to go by and ask them how they are doing someday. They might need a few positive things said to them these days.

[color=black]SJ- Do you think for a moment that they knew they did not have PBA(Private Beach Access)? That really scares me to think that the developer was not even being honest with Hot2Sell(AKA H20 Buster). That would make me feel good if the seller agent was representing me and did not have ALL the facts.COLOR]

I haven't stepped foot on the property because I have never had a need to. Heck, I haven't been in most broker's offices, even the ones with which I do business. The hood of my car is my office in the nice weather and the Air-conditioned interior is my office in the hot summer months. (not officially, but that is where I sign many papers.) I am not buddy, buddy with the peeps at H20. However, it doesn't take long, if you are listening around here, to find out who is honest and who you should watch out for. The only people I have ever heard speak negatively of the collective group of H20 Properties are a small handfull of the people on this board who also are against the the private access. I think you are angry (maybe rightfully so) and are just venting your frustration, unfortunately, at the cost of someone with whom you have probably never spoken -- H20 Properties.

As for the what you consider to be lies, I guess we just disagree. With developments, it matters not what you have when you are selling the concept. What matters is what you have at completion, and how that relates to what was presented to you to be the final product. Remember, there is no sale if the buyer backs out because of breach of contract by the seller. I really don't see this as being any different from a developer selling a condo building pre-construction. The promise is made for a unit with particular size and finishes, and the building with particular ammenities. At the time the property is presented to potential buyers, they understand that the building is not complete. Often times, the ground is not even broken. Again, these are reservations for contracts given at that time. If the unit is not built because of lack of sales (for example), the buyer is refunded his money without penalty, and is not bound to the contract. The seller is not a lier. This issue about the lying in this case is no different. Again, I know some of you strongly disagree with this, but that is my opinion. I have listened to your accusation of lying, but you will need to provide other evidence to convince me. I have one better for you. To test your theory on the sales agents lying, report the particular individuals to the Board of Realtors along with the evidence. It is simple to do and easily accessible via myflorida.com
I doubt you will find their opinion to be different from mine based solely on the evidence which you present.

[BPickelTDC]

This one is slightly different than the one in BMB for Redfish Village because the beach in front of Seagrove Villas was dedicated to the public for Swimming Park , on the plat book 2, page 50, recorded in 1950. See attachment of plat. Seagrove Villas property consist of lots 14-17, Blk 7.

So, while the access is intended to be private, the owners will not be dumped onto a short stretch of privately owned beach. In fact, I don't see privately owned beach property within 500 ft in either direction.

I am not saying that this private access is what is needed in Seagrove. I think the reoccurring problem I continue to see is the lack of public parking at public beach accesses to accomodate the public's use of the beach. I can understand the reasons why developments want to provide a way for their owners and guests to access the beach. This problem will not go away until the County or TDC buys or takes property near the public accesses to the public beaches so that ample parking is provided. If the County wants to keep the tourists and the locals, they better get to work at buying property for public parking.

SJ:

You are correct, a big issue is parking and will continue to be unfortunately there are only a few places where the County owns land that is large enough for parking and restrooms. The TDC doesn't own anything, not even the building we are sitting in because we can't buy property. It has to be the County Commission. We are the developers/managers/maintainers of the access areas just like Public Works maintains roads.

One question I would be curious for input on from anyone who cares to answer- building parking "garages" at the existing beach accesses that have parking capability. Please let me preface this by saying there are no plans for this along 30-A so please don't start spreading rumors that the TDC is going to build parking garages at beach accesses on 30-A , it is only a question for discussion.

[Smiling JOe]

SJ:

You are correct, the issue is parking and will contiue to be unfortunately there are only a few places where the County owns land that is large enough for parking and restrooms. The TDC doesn't own anything, not even the building we are sitting in because we can't buy property. It has to be the County Commission. We are the developers/managers/maintainers of the access areas just like Public Works maintains roads.

One question I would be curious for input on from anyone who cares to answer- building parking "garages" at the existing beach accesses that have parking capability. Please let me preface this by saying there are no plans for this along 30-A so please don't start spreading rumors that the TDC is going to build parking garages at beach accesses on 30-A , it is only a question for discussion.

Brad, thanks for the clarification on the TDC/County. It was always a gray area to me, as it probably is to most people. You explained it clearly.

As for parking decks, while parking is the biggest issue IMO, I don't think parking decks are the answer. I picture parking decks as a four story concrete nasty looking object, which will dump a crap load of people onto one small access. I think we need some parking at all of the public accesses. Right now, it would be nice to see a few more additional parking lots similar in size to the one btw WaterColor and Seaside, several more accesses with parking area similar in size to Ed Walline, and perhaps at some of the lesser used accesses could have parking area similar in size to the one at Oyster Lake (or is it Lake Allen).

Now if they could design a parking garage to look like a Florida Cottage, maybe... Perhaps there are designs for parking garages which are well designed asthetically speaking, and maybe they could blend in, but I wouldn't want to see them blocking off the only remaining views of the Gulf.

Brad, will you comment on the lack of restrooms and any plans for the future for them at these accesses? I think that is almost as critical as the parking.

[John R]

One question I would be curious for input on from anyone who cares to answer- building parking "garages" at the existing beach accesses that have parking capability. Please let me preface this by saying there are no plans for this along 30-A so please don't start spreading rumors that the TDC is going to build parking garages at beach accesses on 30-A , it is only a question for discussion.

when is the tdc going to start building these garages?

i think a multi story parking facility at the watercolor/seaside lot would be a great idea, since a large footprint is probably required for the ramps. i'm sure homeownwers adjacent to it would be screaming about it, but what choice do we have. the county is growing, and there's no question that available parking(legal or not) is dissappearing. the county really needs to start planning yesterday on how to keep up. it's quite the catch 22. >> soon, it may be too much of a hassle to bring the nuclear family here, and they'll find the next best place, or at least a place where they can park within 500' of the beach.

[Smiling JOe]

I would like to throw an idea into the hat regarding parking garages. If you guys decide to build them, build them for the users, not the County. Don't max these things out with "small car only" spaces which no one other than rapunzel can use, just to pump up the number of spaces in the literature.

Brad, I have seen some small garages in Atlanta, but it seems to me that the ramps take up so much of the space. With the existing properties owned by the County, how many are large enough to erect a garage?

[Smiling JOe]

Parking Issue is in a >>> [ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=186900#post186900"]new thread[/ame].<<<

[edroedrog]

I haven't stepped foot on the property because I have never had a need to. Heck, I haven't been in most broker's offices, even the ones with which I do business. The hood of my car is my office in the nice weather and the Air-conditioned interior is my office in the hot summer months. (not officially, but that is where I sign many papers.) I am not buddy, buddy with the peeps at H20. However, it doesn't take long, if you are listening around here, to find out who is honest and who you should watch out for. The only people I have ever heard speak negatively of the collective group of H20 Properties are a small handfull of the people on this board who also are against the the private access. I think you are angry (maybe rightfully so) and are just venting your frustration, unfortunately, at the cost of someone with whom you have probably never spoken -- H20 Properties.

As for the what you consider to be lies, I guess we just disagree. With developments, it matters not what you have when you are selling the concept. What matters is what you have at completion, and how that relates to what was presented to you to be the final product. Remember, there is no sale if the buyer backs out because of breach of contract by the seller. I really don't see this as being any different from a developer selling a condo building pre-construction. The promise is made for a unit with particular size and finishes, and the building with particular ammenities. At the time the property is presented to potential buyers, they understand that the building is not complete. Often times, the ground is not even broken. Again, these are reservations for contracts given at that time. If the unit is not built because of lack of sales (for example), the buyer is refunded his money without penalty, and is not bound to the contract. The seller is not a lier. This issue about the lying in this case is no different. Again, I know some of you strongly disagree with this, but that is my opinion. I have listened to your accusation of lying, but you will need to provide other evidence to convince me. I have one better for you. To test your theory on the sales agents lying, report the particular individuals to the Board of Realtors along with the evidence. It is simple to do and easily accessible via myflorida.com
I doubt you will find their opinion to be different from mine based solely on the evidence which you present.

SJ-Are you saying that Got2Sell(AKA H20)and Beethoven do not comunicate? Again the facts are out there. ie-Bizjournals. Check Memphis area bizjournals maybe but who am I to report the facts. I think you will find that Got2Sell and Beethoven(OK OK Mosac formerly know as New Orchard Group. Maybe a tax benny for name change)

As for evidence maybe I did shred all of my info from the LyingFish Trailer park. HMMMMM I think I got it sometime in 05 and I was on-site and yeap I think they did have some gold shovels for ground breaking. Lots of wine and spirits. Saw a few foreign cars and trucks of course. I think that day they had just pushed all dirt away from the Trailer park so you could see it. I think I have been on-site now that I have had time to reflect SJ..

SJ-Sounds like you are a realtor and would have a tip for all folks buying from the Hot2Sell group who are also investors in Beethoven. The percentages are small but the $$$ are large. How could they not know?

SJ-If facts are facts than I should not have to worry about reporting Hot2Sell because someone and most everyone will once they read your post.

Buster I hope I did not confuse you
.

[Smiling JOe]

Your post above makes no sense.

[John R]

man, that sure as heckfire confused me. seems like a lot of innuendo, with inside name making

[Smiling JOe]

SJ-Sounds like you are a realtor and would have a tip for all folks buying from the Hot2Sell group who are also investors in Beethoven. The percentages are small but the $$$ are large. How could they not know?

What is it that you want to know? How could they not know what? That they currently did not have a private beach access? They also didn't have a physical building when they took the reservations (ie-"sold" the units) so your point is ???

Again, I repeat, the units have not closed.

[edroedrog]

Your post above makes no sense.

SJ-Are you saying you do not know who the developer is? How could the post make no since. I am just seeing how much you really know about the things you type about. If you got the LyingFish Trailer Park than you should certainly understand Hot2Sell and the Beethoven thing... Come on

SJ-Oh you probably want me to explain the investor thing. Let's just say that Hot2Sell and Beethoven are sleeping together. And Hot2Sell has some money in the deal too.

SJ-You explained my earlier post to Buster so well that I thought surely you would understand.

[edroedrog]

man, that sure as heckfire confused me. seems like a lot of innuendo, with inside name making

Sorry John R for the innuendo's but it is how I tell the story. You have to laugh it off sometimes when it is the only thing you can do about it. SJ-is good at reading my quotes he helped buster out just yesterday. But I think you get my point. I will try not to use too many innuendos next time. Sorry..

I am not trying to be confusing just placing facts out on this board for all that wants the PrivateBA to go the way the community wants it to. I posted a meeting that they had yesterday that people were very please with according to Private mailings that I received. Do not confuse the innuendos with the facts. They are all true...

[John R]

...on this board for all that wants the PrivateBA to go the way the community wants it to. I posted a meeting that they had yesterday that people were very please with...

ok, i'm with you on most of it. help me out with above. and, also what is the jump from new orchard>beethoven?

[Advance The Man]

In one sense I agree with you, the final product has not been completed. If purchasing a unit with promised amenities (i.e. beach access, gazebo, picnic tables, bathrooms, whatever else they indicated...) and now the developer is advertising they do not have these things, much less the access, then that is a problem. edroe appears to be referring to this http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/s...tml?from_rss=1

What is it that you want to know? How could they not know what? That they currently did not have a private beach access? They also didn't have a physical building when they took the reservations (ie-"sold" the units) so your point is ???

Again, I repeat, the units have not closed.

[edroedrog]

In one sense I agree with you, the final product has not been completed. If purchasing a unit with promised amenities (i.e. beach access, gazebo, picnic tables, bathrooms, whatever else they indicated...) and now the developer is advertising they do not have these things, much less the access, then that is a problem. edroe appears to be referring to this http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/s...tml?from_rss=1

Thanks ATM for the facts.. I did not want to explain this again as various others have in this tread.

[edroedrog]

ok, i'm with you on most of it. help me out with above. and, also what is the jump from new orchard>beethoven?

Thanks johnR for the correction. Not sure if I am to believe the website. So I guess that is true they are Orchard..

[Smiling JOe]

SJ-Are you saying you do not know who the developer is? How could the post make no since. I am just seeing how much you really know about the things you type about. If you got the LyingFish Trailer Park than you should certainly understand Hot2Sell and the Beethoven thing... Come on

SJ-Oh you probably want me to explain the investor thing. Let's just say that Hot2Sell and Beethoven are sleeping together. And Hot2Sell has some money in the deal too.

SJ-You explained my earlier post to Buster so well that I thought surely you would understand.

It is not that I cannot decipher your code speak. The part which doesn't make sense is that it doesn't give any evidence of lying of which you are accusing, nor does it have anything to do with this discuss of their quest for beach access.

[Smiling JOe]

In one sense I agree with you, the final product has not been completed. If purchasing a unit with promised amenities (i.e. beach access, gazebo, picnic tables, bathrooms, whatever else they indicated...) and now the developer is advertising they do not have these things, much less the access, then that is a problem. edroe appears to be referring to this http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/s...tml?from_rss=1

I have a copy of the original sales brochures for any buyer that lost theirs. If they are now promoting it without all of the amenities originally listed, the original buyers should be able to escape the contract penalty free -- see a lawyer. Obviously, now the private access is in question, so they are smart to remove it from their list of ammenities. That is acting in good faith that now they sense that the private access may not be granted. I see nothing wrong with that as long as they don't try to backstep and say that they never pitched those ammenities to the original purchasers.

Private access or not (I am against it in this particular neighborhood of many single family residences), we are being distracted by the real problem of lack of public parking for these beach goers to access the beach.

[edroedrog]

It is not that I cannot decipher your code speak. The part which doesn't make sense is that it doesn't give any evidence of lying of which you are accusing, nor does it have anything to do with this discuss of their quest for beach access.

SJ-It has everything to do with this discussion.

I just want the community to make sure they get it in writing that whatever LyingFish Trailer Park says they are going to do they do it. Because once the developer cashes in you will never see them again and the next community will use ours as an example.

Now back to the meeting that happened yesterday? Does anyone have anything yet? I know the stenographer got it on paper and that it has to be approved. How long does that take?

[buster]

I wasn't at the meeting but heard there was nothing new. If the developer meets the advertising deadline, they can get on the next agenda for the planning commission meeting Jan. 11.

Apparently the planning staff will tell the commission that there is nothing technical preventing their approval. It sounds like this will come down to a subjective decision about compatibility by the commissioners. If the public raises enough cane and the commission worries that this is a bad idea and could set a precedent they might deny it.

Most likely though they will just pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and let them deal with it. The BCC is notorious for rolling over to the party more likely to sue.

This issue is really absurd when you think about it. Scenic 30A beaches will become walled and guarded with rent a cops all over the place protecting turf and telling people to get off the private beaches. Tow trucks will be everywhere because thousands of cars from large developments and subdivisions will be trying to park near their private accesses.

Today, 80 units at Redfish, tomorrow, 2,400 homes in <name goes here> subdivision. And what's to prevent existing developments, whether it be 6 homes, 45 condos, 22 townhomes, or 234 apartments from buying gulf front property and doing the same thing?

[edroedrog]

I wasn't at the meeting but heard there was nothing new. If the developer meets the advertising deadline, they can get on the next agenda for the planning commission meeting Jan. 11.

Apparently the planning staff will tell the commission that there is nothing technical preventing their approval. It sounds like this will come down to a subjective decision about compatibility by the commissioners. If the public raises enough cane and the commission worries that this is a bad idea and could set a precedent they might deny it.

Most likely though they will just pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and let them deal with it. The BCC is notorious for rolling over to the party more likely to sue.

This issue is really absurd when you think about it. Scenic 30A beaches will become walled and guarded with rent a cops all over the place protecting turf and telling people to get off the private beaches. Tow trucks will be everywhere because thousands of cars from large developments and subdivisions will be trying to park near their private accesses.

Today, 80 units at Redfish, tomorrow, 2,400 homes in <name goes here> subdivision. And what's to prevent existing developments, whether it be 6 homes, 45 condos, 22 townhomes, or 234 apartments from buying gulf front property and doing the same thing?

Thanks Buster, I will be looking for the minutes to this meeting. Once they are all typed up I will post them for all to read.

So, the first property they originally purchased for PrivateBA is no longer in the picture right? How long do you think it will take them to get the second lot approved?

[Smiling JOe]

SJ-It has everything to do with this discussion.

I just want the community to make sure they get it in writing that whatever LyingFish Trailer Park says they are going to do they do it. Because once the developer cashes in you will never see them again and the next community will use ours as an example.

Now back to the meeting that happened yesterday? Does anyone have anything yet? I know the stenographer got it on paper and that it has to be approved. How long does that take?

To the best of my knowledge, the minutes will not be approved until the next Board Meeting, which should be around Jan 9, just guessing without looking at a calendar. Then, the County typically takes a few days to make them available online or for walk-in customers requesting them.

[Smiling JOe]

...
Apparently the planning staff will tell the commission that there is nothing technical preventing their approval. It sounds like this will come down to a subjective decision about compatibility by the commissioners. If the public raises enough cane and the commission worries that this is a bad idea and could set a precedent they might deny it.

Most likely though they will just pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and let them deal with it. The BCC is notorious for rolling over to the party more likely to sue....

I agree, the only thing which will likely stop this is the decision of compatibility, which is required for NPA Infill zoned property.

I think you are also accurate that the Planning Committee rarely rejects anything, because they don't want to be the bad guy. Therefore, they send it on to the BCC (Board of County Commissioners) with their recommendation to approve. The BCC looks at it and with the notes from the Planning Comm recommending to approve. Sometimes a few questions are asked, but usually, they pass without an eyebrow being raised from anyone on the BCC. Comm. Meadow, having a background in town planning, will sometimes raise a question or two, but she is about the only one. The County continues to wear blinders when looking at the lack of infrastructure in WalCo. They keep allowing more growth, but the existing services and infrastructure cannot handle the load.

[SHELLY]

In one sense I agree with you, the final product has not been completed. If purchasing a unit with promised amenities (i.e. beach access, gazebo, picnic tables, bathrooms, whatever else they indicated...) and now the developer is advertising they do not have these things, much less the access, then that is a problem. edroe appears to be referring to this http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/s...tml?from_rss=1

"(Developers) are fat and happy on the condo development right now," he says.

[edroedrog]

To the best of my knowledge, the minutes will not be approved until the next Board Meeting, which should be around Jan 9, just guessing without looking at a calendar. Then, the County typically takes a few days to make them available online or for walk-in customers requesting them.

The meeting was passed on to the County was suppose to be heard Feb. 8th possibly Feb. 22 but somehow the LyingFish Trailer Park got that moved up to January 11th. As you guys have said on these boards numerous times "They are going to fast Track this one". I believe you guys now. So you might want to check your calendars call your local folks and get them down here January 11th. You should notice signage that will appear overnight while everyone is asleep. They will probably put it near a Tree or plant bushes around it so you the public can not see it.

So Slider did get this one pushed up. Not sure about him or not. Maybe someone needs to look at his PublicBA and potentially sell it to some developer. Maybe he can get the County to change the way the land adjacent to him was deeded. SHHHHHH.. HMMMMM. You guys said that the layers could change anything...

[edroedrog]

"(Developers) are fat and happy on the condo development right now," he says.

The Mephicans at Hard2Sell down in Lyfish Trailer park have not made a dime yet. The Apple Group is having meetings right now to see how to wiggle out of this one. Wonder what the secret password is to get in the door? Does anyone know? I have a few folks that want to send the stenographer so they can write down more propaganda. They probably have a New Years retreat planned for all the Politically Leveraged folks in Walton County. Maybe they will be fishing from the new PrivateBA that Slider is trying to get pushed through. Hey I bet Walton County got a nice XMas gift from the Apple Group (NOG Buster) this year.

Shelly-Like your state flower. Looks like it is time for a feast in your town..

[edroedrog]

I wasn't at the meeting but heard there was nothing new. If the developer meets the advertising deadline, they can get on the next agenda for the planning commission meeting Jan. 11.

Apparently the planning staff will tell the commission that there is nothing technical preventing their approval. It sounds like this will come down to a subjective decision about compatibility by the commissioners. If the public raises enough cane and the commission worries that this is a bad idea and could set a precedent they might deny it.

Most likely though they will just pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and let them deal with it. The BCC is notorious for rolling over to the party more likely to sue.

This issue is really absurd when you think about it. Scenic 30A beaches will become walled and guarded with rent a cops all over the place protecting turf and telling people to get off the private beaches. Tow trucks will be everywhere because thousands of cars from large developments and subdivisions will be trying to park near their private accesses.

Today, 80 units at Redfish, tomorrow, 2,400 homes in <name goes here> subdivision. And what's to prevent existing developments, whether it be 6 homes, 45 condos, 22 townhomes, or 234 apartments from buying gulf front property and doing the same thing?

Buster-Tell me a little more seems you know the meeting is January 11th. It was suppose to be Feb. 8th and somehow changed. Did you know that or did you just guess they would get on the Jan 11th list?

Anyhow, I am not a engineer and surely not a lawyer but I have seen some documents that would not allow this Land to be used for PrivateBA. I am not sure what you mean by rolling over because you know LFV has more to lose.

I would venture to guess that in your neighborhood and buster I do believe you are against this, that you would not want a community anything to popup next to your lot. Am I not right on this one? If I were a land owner near this proposed Major development site I would not want the 24X7 party in the summer months at this site.

[buster]

[COLOR=black]Buster-Tell me a little more seems you know the meeting is January 11th. It was suppose to be Feb. 8th and somehow changed. Did you know that or did you just guess they would get on the Jan 11th list?

I called planning department and was told that if they meet the advertising requirements the developer would get on for JAN. 11. I assume the PC will rubber stamp it and send it to the BCC on Jan. 23.

Thursday, January 11, 2007
5:00 PM Planning Commission
Agenda is available at www.co.walton.fl.us on the Thursday before the
meeting.
SW Courthouse Annex, 31 Coastal Centre Boulevard, Santa Rosa Beach
Doris Cooper, Administrative Assistant, 267-1955

Tuesday, January 23, 2007
4:00 PM Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Agenda is available at www.co.walton.fl.us on the Thursday before the
meeting.
Walton County Courthouse, DeFuniak Springs
Dede Hinote, Executive Assistant, 892-8156

[Anyhow, I am not a engineer and surely not a lawyer but I have seen some documents that would not allow this Land to be used for PrivateBA. I am not sure what you mean by rolling over because you know LFV has more to lose.

I meant I thought the county would approve it. Unless a lot of people raise cain on the compatibility issue and raise a stink about this setting a horrible precedent. Still, my guess is that the BCC will not want to get sued by the developer, nor will they want to see a large project like this flounder and I'm sure a lot of people think is really neat.

If a stink is made and parties threaten to sue then the BCC will probably drag their feet and instill a quasi-judicial process which requires both sides to be represented by lawyers and present evidence regarding traffic, compatibility, etc. This would likely be won by the developer but they certainly don't want this to drag out.


edroedrog - Can you elaborate on the documents you've seen and how they will prevent the private beach access? And will they be presented to the planning commission or BCC?

[edroedrog]

edroedrog - Can you elaborate on the documents you've seen and how they will prevent the private beach access? And will they be presented to the planning commission or BCC?[/quote]

I thought you knew that a Lawyer had been retained for the community. He is going to fight it for the folks just like the 1st lot that was denied PrivateBA. Did not take them long to turn that one down.

Looks like the developer does not always win.

Codes strictly state what the land is to be used for.

[buster]

edroedrog - Can you elaborate on the documents you've seen and how they will prevent the private beach access? And will they be presented to the planning commission or BCC?

I thought you knew that a Lawyer had been retained for the community. He is going to fight it for the folks just like the 1st lot that was denied PrivateBA. Did not take them long to turn that one down.

Looks like the developer does not always win.

Codes strictly state what the land is to be used for.

The 1st lot has not been turned down by the county. I don't believe the codes reference private beach access for offsite developments one way or the other. This is new ground. If you call and ask planning staff they'll tell you there is nothing preventing the developer from getting the 2nd lot approved. That's why I say it comes down to the somewhat subjective determination of compatibility, which is what is referenced in the codes.

So again I ask you what document did you see and what did it say that makes you certain it will not be allowed?

[Smiling JOe]

The 1st lot has not been turned down by the county. I don't believe the codes reference private beach access for offsite developments one way or the other. This is new ground. If you call and ask planning staff they'll tell you there is nothing preventing the developer from getting the 2nd lot approved. That's why I say it comes down to the somewhat subjective determination of compatibility, which is what is referenced in the codes.

So again I ask you what document did you see and what did it say that makes you certain it will not be allowed?

That is also what the developer has consistantly said -- they own two lots which they have right to use as a blah, blah, blah.

I am uncertain whether or not if "compitable" is defined in the zoning codes. Anyone know?

[edroedrog]

That is also what the developer has consistantly said -- they own two lots which they have right to use as a blah, blah, blah.

I am uncertain whether or not if "compitable" is defined in the zoning codes. Anyone know?

Section 2.01.03L2.e. of the Code, This pertains to developent standards for all NPAs

Compatability with Existing Neighborhoods. The compatibility of new development with existing adjacent neighborhoods shall be considered as part of the review of any proposal for development within the NPA disstrict. To accomplisht this, all individual project plans and Neighborhood Plans shall establish a specific combination and quantity of uses which relate to existing adjacent conditions and in effect, preserve or enhance the desirable aspects of existing development in the adjacent areas and ensure compatible new development.

[edroedrog]

The 1st lot has not been turned down by the county. I don't believe the codes reference private beach access for offsite developments one way or the other. This is new ground. If you call and ask planning staff they'll tell you there is nothing preventing the developer from getting the 2nd lot approved. That's why I say it comes down to the somewhat subjective determination of compatibility, which is what is referenced in the codes.

So again I ask you what document did you see and what did it say that makes you certain it will not be allowed?

As I see it the first lot is a done deal. LyingFish Trailer Park would not have bought Lot 2 if this was not the case.

[Smiling JOe]

Section 2.01.03L2.e. of the Code, This pertains to developent standards for all NPAs

Compatability with Existing Neighborhoods. The compatibility of new development with existing adjacent neighborhoods shall be considered as part of the review of any proposal for development within the NPA disstrict. To accomplisht this, all individual project plans and Neighborhood Plans shall establish a specific combination and quantity of uses which relate to existing adjacent conditions and in effect, preserve or enhance the desirable aspects of existing development in the adjacent areas and ensure compatible new development.

Sounds to me like the "or enhance" part is what the developer has been focusing on, because he has been selling it as such that the surrounding properties will have increased value by the lot not having 5 units on it -- just some restrooms and a boardwalk with landscaping.

[Smiling JOe]

As I see it the first lot is a done deal. LyingFish Trailer Park would not have bought Lot 2 if this was not the case.

Not true. The developers chances of finding compatibilty and more varied types of building, ie-condos, on surrounding properties are much greater with lot number two, rather than lot number one due to lot number 1 is zoned as preservation residential allowing only one unit per half acre, I believe. Also, there are no condos in close proximity to lot number one. I believe it is the developer's strong opinion that lot #1 wouldn't cut the mustard. It was even much closer proximity to the Redfish Village, and the more natural path expected to be taken to get to the beach. They know they screwed up, but they know that WalCo Gov't is a pushover when it comes to money and networking. For a project which stands to lose this much money, it may be worth some gov't officials wearing leather skin and earplugs.

(Lot #1 and 2 are not the actual lot numbers -- just the order in which they were purchased)

[edroedrog]

Not true. The developers chances of finding compatibilty and more varied types of building, ie-condos, on surrounding properties are much greater with lot number two, rather than lot number one due to lot number 1 is zoned as preservation residential allowing only one unit per half acre, I believe. Also, there are no condos in close proximity to lot number one. I believe it is the developer's strong opinion that lot #1 wouldn't cut the mustard. It was even much closer proximity to the Redfish Village, and the more natural path expected to be taken to get to the beach. They know they screwed up, but they know that WalCo Gov't is a pushover when it comes to money and networking. For a project which stands to lose this much money, it may be worth some gov't officials wearing leather skin and earplugs.

(Lot #1 and 2 are not the actual lot numbers -- just the order in which they were purchased)

Sorry I missed something then. I understood that someone went into their own pocket to protect the first Lot of choice from being used as PrivateBA.

Sounds like a Buyers Beware campaign should be considered then for Walton County. The Gov. will let the developers come in and make their money and leave.

Community supports the Gov. the Gov. supports the outsiders not the Community. Imagine that in good old Walton county. Seems like I should have gone to the book signing at the @ss cafe SJ.

[edroedrog]

Sounds to me like the "or enhance" part is what the developer has been focusing on, because he has been selling it as such that the surrounding properties will have increased value by the lot not having 5 units on it -- just some restrooms and a boardwalk with landscaping.

80 condos 50% occupied 3 people from the 40 condos that are occupied sorry that is 120 people (rough numbers and very conservative). This is only 75 feet of road frontage right? So that must mean that they have 75 feet of Beach front property. OK so lets help setup 120 chairs on this beach everyday during the peak months. When we go to the beach they put the umbrellas 12 feet apart. (Stick with me I am going to try to do the math.) So you get 6 umbrellas per row two chairs per umbrella gives you a 3 foot aisle. So that would be 10 rows of umbrellas and chairs. How is that an enhancement if I am looking out my window during the peak months. Maybe they can build a people garage on the beach and good luck at walking past the PrivateBA. It is going to be butt to noise.

I have also heard that they, the owners adjacent, are going to post signs on their beach and keep all of the PrivateBA goers off of their property.

Sorry I do not see it as an enhancement. I personally would not buy anything located around this PrivateBA for several reasons. People are still going to park in my yard, block the streets, and litter.

[Smiling JOe]

The new and improved Blue Mountain Beach and Seagrove Beach Private Beach Accesses:














Looks more like a concert lawn to me. Can you imagine the parking lot?

[edroedrog]

The new and improved Blue Mountain Beach and Seagrove Beach Private Beach Accesses:


Looks more like a concert lawn to me. Can you imagine the parking lot?

Pictures are louder than words. Love this post. This is what needs to be placed next to the Notice that LyingFish Trailer Park is going to put on Second attempt to save their @ss...(Lot 2 Buster)

So I have been updated this AM. Lot 1 is a no go for LyingFish Trailer Park. I will Post some info on this if you would love to see it Buster. I think you already have it though. If anyone needs this info let me know and I will consider PrivateEing it to you.

[buster]

Pictures are louder than words. Love this post. This is what needs to be placed next to the Notice that LyingFish Trailer Park is going to put on Second attempt to save their @ss...(Lot 2 Buster)

So I have been updated this AM. Lot 1 is a no go for LyingFish Trailer Park. I will Post some info on this if you would love to see it Buster. I think you already have it though. If anyone needs this info let me know and I will consider PrivateEing it to you.

It would be good to see. What I had heard was that RFV was sued by the adjoining lot (of lot 1) and that there might have been some judgement. Also there was mention of a stop work order when they started building the walkover on that lot. Maybe that was a result of the lawsuit.

What I have not seen is something in writing from the county that the county denied the intended use on lot 1.

[Kevin Thompson]

Sounds like you have personal issues with these people. Were you fired by them? I like reading your posts but it was easy to find out that you and Buster are wrong and there was never a judgement on the 1st lot and that they still have that lot as an option. I know people at hard2sell as you call it and I actually like them.

[BMBWalker]

Sounds like you have personal issues with these people. Were you fired by them? I like reading your posts but it was easy to find out that you and Buster are wrong and there was never a judgement on the 1st lot and that they still have that lot as an option. I know people at hard2sell as you call it and I actually like them.

Kevin...I may be wrong, but my understanding of the lot #1 issue goes like this: Redfish Village was issued a permit for some type of work project on lot #1 in error; Pat Blackshear quickly issued a Stop Work order to correct the error in issuing the permit. By not contesting the Stop Work order, Redfish Village seem to think that they can now state publically they were never denied a permit and that if they wanted to pursue the proposed project they could do so on lot #1; I can't follow their logic, but they were stopped from using Lot #1 for their original purposes. They are now attempting to do on lot #2 what they originally tried to do on lot #1.

If my understanding on this issue is incorrect, someone please correct me or add additional info.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Disingenuous (at minimum) is my characterization of Redfish Village and New Orchard Group's position regarding the first bathroom lot. They have claimed they were never turned down by the county for the first lot.

This from an internal email dated May 4th, 2006, from the Planning Department (Lois La-Seur to Lynn Hoshihara) titled "Redfish Village letter":

"We have a situation where a developer and his realtor are telling prospective buyers that Walton County has approved a priate beach access for their residents across a single family lot in a residential subdivision. We have been receiving complaints about this for some time, and they've actually put out a brochure (I have a copy) with a description and a picture.

Problem is, we told the developer months and months ago that they couldn't build a beach access there; it violates the land use on that property.

The neighborhood where they are proposing this is very upset, and they keep calling both the department and the commissioners for the reassuance that the County has not and will not approve this beach access.

Commissioner Citchens asked that we send them a certified letter, return receipt requested, telling them in writing to stop advertising this - and to send it IMMEDIATELY."....


At the December 7th community meeting, Brad Zeitlin (RFV developer) claimed that they purchased the second bathroom lot for over 5 million dollars only because they thought this location would provide a "better experience" for the owners. He was also very adamant at the same meeting that the county never turned them down for the first bathroom lot.

When questioned again regarding this, George Ralph Miller, their attorney, finally admitted the reason they did not use the first lot was because of zoning. Even Mr. Miller recognized the hole they were digging themselves in when fudging the truth regarding the county's position regarding the first bathroom lot.

You be the judge.

[Beemn]

It is interesting... When the seawalls went up on the beach the county was good. The right of membership in the beachfront club was protected. Touting private property rights people of the beachfront club post no trespass signs. The redfish developer owns this property but now you say he has no right! interesting! You say he has a high impact use, but after hurricanes it is your infrastructure that litters our beach and OUR water. You never clean it up! The high impact use you speak of would reduce the infrastucture footprint on the terminal dune, and the amount of debri on the beach and water. Interesting. And speaking of beach, now that the beach club has seawalls which will enhance erosion and cause our beach to disappear, we will need dredging ( called beach nourishment ) to have a beach! Who will pay for it? The masses pictured earlier on this thread! You had no problem taking their money as you giddily flipped property to enrich yourself. Now you want to croud them onto one access and limit their movement! Interesting! You represent a very ugly greedy argument.

[BMBWalker]

Disingenuous (at minimum) is my characterization of Redfish Village and New Orchard Group's position regarding the first bathroom lot. They have claimed they were never turned down by the county for the first lot.

This from an internal email dated May 4th, 2006, from the Planning Department (Lois La-Seur to Lynn Hoshihara) titled "Redfish Village letter":

"We have a situation where a developer and his realtor are telling prospective buyers that Walton County has approved a priate beach access for their residents across a single family lot in a residential subdivision. We have been receiving complaints about this for some time, and they've actually put out a brochure (I have a copy) with a description and a picture.

Problem is, we told the developer months and months ago that they couldn't build a beach access there; it violates the land use on that property.

The neighborhood where they are proposing this is very upset, and they keep calling both the department and the commissioners for the reassuance that the County has not and will not approve this beach access.

Commissioner Citchens asked that we send them a certified letter, return receipt requested, telling them in writing to stop advertising this - and to send it IMMEDIATELY."....


At the December 7th community meeting, Brad Zeitlin (RFV developer) claimed that they purchased the second bathroom lot for over 5 million dollars only because they thought this location would provide a "better experience" for the owners. He was also very adamant at the same meeting that the county never turned them down for the first bathroom lot.

When questioned again regarding this, George Ralph Miller, their attorney, finally admitted the reason they did not use the first lot was because of zoning. Even Mr. Miller recognized the hole they were digging themselves in when fudging the truth regarding the county's position regarding the first bathroom lot.

You be the judge.

BMBVagrant...WOW!!!..I guess I just had the tip of the iceberg...thanks for the additional info...can't believe these guys can be so loose with the facts!!!

[BMBWalker]

It is interesting... When the seawalls went up on the beach the county was good. The right of membership in the beachfront club was protected. Touting private property rights people of the beachfront club post no trespass signs. The redfish developer owns this property but now you say he has no right! interesting! You say he has a high impact use, but after hurricanes it is your infrastructure that litters our beach and OUR water. You never clean it up! The high impact use you speak of would reduce the infrastucture footprint on the terminal dune, and the amount of debri on the beach and water. Interesting. And speaking of beach, now that the beach club has seawalls which will enhance erosion and cause our beach to disappear, we will need dredging ( called beach nourishment ) to have a beach! Who will pay for it? The masses pictured earlier on this thread! You had no problem taking their money as you giddily flipped property to enrich yourself. Now you want to croud them onto one access and limit their movement! Interesting! You represent a very ugly greedy argument.

Beemn...your petty accusations are pathetic.

You haven't done your homework. There are 4 public access walkways Redfish Village owners, guests, renters and invitees can use to disperse over the beach. One walkway vs Four walkways...you do the math!

Redfish Village continues to states that they have a right to use this property as a gateway! They don't have that RIGHT until the county says they have that RIGHT!

[Smiling JOe]

Beemn...your petty accusations are pathetic.

You haven't done your homework. There are 4 public access walkways Redfish Village owners, guests, renters and invitees can use to disperse over the beach. One walkway vs Four walkways...you do the math!

Redfish Village continues to states that they have a right to use this property as a gateway! They don't have that RIGHT until the county says they have that RIGHT!

...and those four accesses lead to Public Beach where people can legally scatter, as opposed proposed lot 2 private access which is approx 75' in width and leads to privately owned beach surrounded by privately owned property which does not allow people to stop and rest upon.

[Kevin Thompson]

I happen to have property on the east side of 83 and know all the facts about lot 1. We tried to stop lot 1 but never got anywhere. Since you are so vocal I guess the east siders need to speak up. All of you must live on the west side because we like the idea of not having people flooding down our roads walking on our property driving on the roads and leaving trash. We actually think the idea is great to have them shuttled to one location. All the letters are public record and there happened to be a response to that letter from an attorney for Redfish which I have seen, which you must choose to ignore, which is also available which shut the Walton County people down on commenting on what was being advertised. It was not Walton County's place to tell a developer not to advertise anything and it was shown that Redfish never said they had approval from Walton County for anything. We learned that they can advertise whatever they want as long as they deliver it at the end. All of your facts are wrong. You just happen to be upset like we were when we thought it was on our side of the road. Now it's on your side but guess what, we are the one's who have residential preservation you don't. You are in the middle of condominiums and townhouses already so what is your issue that you will have more people to deal with?