A few Walton County Commissioners For Sale, really cheap. Actually, I will pay someone to haul them off from Walton County if you promise they want step foot back into Walton County politricks.
Thank God for Cindy Meadows and Sara Commander, but tonight, Walton County was one vote short. :bang: Based on the precedence set tonight at the WalCo Annex, anyone can do what ever the hell they want to when it comes to developing property, because the BCC relies upon the Planning Staff and the Planning Staff says that they rely on the applicant (developer). :twisted:
A few people hired some very impressive lawyers (you know how much I hate lawyers, but I would welcome Mike Burke to represent me regarding real estate ) who ripped a new @$$ into the County Planner in charge of this NatureWalk Beach Club project. He ran Planner Tim Brown through the ringer, poking many holes in Mr. Brown's reasoning, showing numerous ways how this proposal for the Beach Club is not allowed based on the Walton County Comp Plan and based on Non-conforming use. Commissioners Pridgen and Jones voted in favor of Comm Brannon's motion. Commissioner Jones even had the audacity to state that he was voting based on evidence presented and the recommendation of the Staff. As a reminder, the Staff Planner, Tim Brown, contradicted his statements, and gave testimony that the project exceeded things like density, and allowable footprint.
Under the Non-conforming issue, a building can not be expanded or it loses its non-conforming use. This Beach Club will triple the square footage of the existing buildings.
I won't go into the details, but know that some of the Walton County Commissioners are not listening to the evidence given and they are basing their votes on something out of this world. I guess it would help if the Commissioners were required to actually remain in the room during the time when evidence and testimony is given. :bang:
A few Walton County Commissioners For Sale, really cheap. Remember it!
Replies
130
SoWal ExpertAuthor
So they are saying this parcel has become part of the Planned Urban Development of NatureWalk, and thus must follow the NatureWalk C&Rs? What are those original C&Rs and can someone post a copy of them online? How did this parcel, so recently purchased, get folded into the NatureWalk PUD? Was doing so legal, if the zoning on the beachfront parcel is as you say Residential Preservation?...
It gets a little complicated because while the zoning for subject property is RP, the non-comforming use is commercial. There are rules in place that restrict expansion of the structures if the non-conforming property changes ownership. The rules state that no expansion (undefined) is to take place. (period!) If expansion of the footprint takes place, it is no longer allowed to go under the non-conforming use. It would have to be submitted as a new project, which in this case, being that the property is acutally zoned RP, would allow for a maximum of four single family homes, and nothing else. No commercial nor mixed use.
As for your other question, I'm not sure, but I don't think the Beach Club is part of the PUD, which has already been approved.
BTW, I had a copy of the C&R's and original deed, but threw them out long ago while trying to organize. Since the original deed dates back to 1953 I think, they are attainable on the www, but anything prior to 1976 has a different filing method, and I forgot how to access it. You can call to the Clerk of Courts office, and they should be able to walk you through it. FYI - The subject property consists of LOTS 14-15-16-17, BLK 7 SEAGROVE 3RD ADD
Edited
SoWal Insider
It gets a little complicated because while the zoning for subject property is RP, the non-comforming use is commercial. There are rules in place that restrict expansion of the structures if the non-conforming property changes ownership. The rules state that no expansion (undefined) is to take place. (period!) If expansion of the footprint takes place, it is no longer allowed to go under the non-conforming use. It would have to be submitted as a new project, which in this case, being that the property is acutally zoned RP, would allow for a maximum of four single family homes, and nothing else. No commercial nor mixed use.
As for your other question, I'm not sure, but I don't think the Beach Club is part of the PUD, which has already been approved.
Are these guidelines part of the Land Development Code?
I'm sorry for the silly question, but I couldn't find this online. What exactly did they approve yesterday? If the plans have not been submitted to the county, the building itself could not hve been approved. :confused: Unless the county planners are now signing blank blueprints and handing them over to developers. :shock:
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Are these guidelines part of the Land Development Code?I think Nature Walk must have given the County Planners a verbal overview, because project Planner Tim Brown, when asked, stated that he had not seen the architectural plans. Tim is the person in charge of this project so you would think that if anyone at the County level would see the plans, it would be him.
I'm sorry for the silly question, but I couldn't find this online. What exactly did they approve yesterday? If the plans have not been submitted to the county, the building itself could not hve been approved. :confused: Unless the county planners are now signing blank blueprints and handing them over to developers. :shock:
One person noted to the BCC at last night's meeting that she thought it was really fishy that NatureWalk had no presentation to give the BCC regarding their project other than a verbal presentation. No pictures, no drawings, no anything regarding the Beach Club. Having been to plenty of these meetings, I smelled stinky fish when I entered the room.
I believe those guidelines are part of the land development code, but don't quote me on that. That have so many codes around here that I cannot keep up. Some things, they don't even have written down, according to my recent visit to the Planning Dpt. I suggested that it would be nice to have the rules in writing so that I wouldn't be wasting our time. :bang:
SoWal Insider
I think Nature Walk must have given the County Planners a verbal overview, because project Planner Tim Brown, when asked, stated that he had not seen the architectural plans. Tim is the person in charge of this project so you would think that if anyone at the County level would see the plans, it would be him.
One person noted to the BCC at last night's meeting that she thought it was really fishy that NatureWalk had no presentation to give the BCC regarding their project other than a verbal presentation. No pictures, no drawings, no anything regarding the Beach Club. Having been to plenty of these meetings, I smelled stinky fish when I entered the room.
I believe those guidelines are part of the land development code, but don't quote me on that. That have so many codes around here that I cannot keep up. Some things, they don't even have written down, according to my recent visit to the Planning Dpt. I suggested that it would be nice to have the rules in writing so that I wouldn't be wasting our time. :bang:
Thanks SJ. Okay, I'm trying to be specific here and like everyone here I am slower than 6thgen so I want to make sure I get it. :razz:
Last night the County Commission (66.7 percent of it) approved a project that:
1) Hasn't been seen on paper by anyone in the county
2) Is not part of the orignal NatureWalk PUD
3) If built as described, clearly violates significant restrictions laid out in county code on that type of property.
If so, WTF? :pissed:
Beach Fanatic
You probably have it right. This is why I stopped going to Co. Commission meetings...I would need one of Dr. Skunky's strange prescriptions....It is unbelieveable..:bang:
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Thanks SJ. Okay, I'm trying to be specific here and like everyone here I am slower than 6thgen so I want to make sure I get it. :razz:After a quick double check, my earlier answer is correct. Those rules to which I referred are part of the Land Development Code. I also found some new information which should present problems for NatureWalk. Check out Chapter 8 of the Walton County Land Development Code. Specifically, 8.01.03 Termination of Nonconforming Development, Section A.
Last night the County Commission (66.7 percent of it) approved a project that:
1) Hasn't been seen on paper by anyone in the county
2) Is not part of the orignal NatureWalk PUD
3) If built as described, clearly violates significant restrictions laid out in county code on that type of property.
If so, WTF? :pissed:
Here are some references for you regarding this Beach Club.
from the Land Development Code:
1.06.02 (that is in Chpt 1)
1.08.00
8.01.02 sections A,B,C, & E (this is chpt 8)
8.01.03
I think they make logical sense to me. Board of County Commissioners is responsible for enforcing the Covenants and Deed Restrictions (which they didn't do last night). The Burden of Proof is upon the owner, not Walton County (this is what Pat Blackshear was stating). Once they stop using this property as it is, and the structure's (Not entire property) fair market value is diminished by more than 50%, "no repairs or rebuilding shall be permitted," except by the terms in the Code (in which case, Nature Walk Beach Club does not meet the Code on several accounts.)
Hope this above info clarifies a few things. It is really fairly clear to anyone who reads it.
SoWal Insider
After a quick double check, my earlier answer is correct. Those rules to which I referred are part of the Land Development Code. I also found some new information which should present problems for NatureWalk. Check out Chapter 8 of the Walton County Land Development Code. Specifically, 8.01.03 Termination of Nonconforming Development, Section A.
Here are some references for you regarding this Beach Club.
from the Land Development Code:
1.06.02 (that is in Chpt 1)
1.08.00
8.01.02 sections A,B,C, & E (this is chpt 8)
8.01.03
I think they make logical sense to me. Board of County Commissioners is responsible for enforcing the Covenants and Deed Restrictions (which they didn't do last night). The Burden of Proof is upon the owner, not Walton County (this is what Pat Blackshear was stating). Once they stop using this property as it is, and the structure's (Not entire property) fair market value is diminished by more than 50%, "no repairs or rebuilding shall be permitted," except by the terms in the Code (in which case, Nature Walk Beach Club does not meet the Code on several accounts.)
Hope this above info clarifies a few things. It is really fairly clear to anyone who reads it.
Thanks SJ. I will read up on this tonight.
Edited
needs to get out more
Thanks SJ. Okay, I'm trying to be specific here and like everyone here I am slower than 6thgen so I want to make sure I get it. :razz:
Last night the County Commission (66.7 percent of it) approved a project that:
1) Hasn't been seen on paper by anyone in the county
2) Is not part of the orignal NatureWalk PUD
3) If built as described, clearly violates significant restrictions laid out in county code on that type of property.
If so, WTF? :pissed:
pretty much. it was interesting at the beginning of the review C. Meadows stated that they(BCC) have never seen the entire pagkage of this project, since the get-go. it appears that the project has been roiled in so much turmoil that every meeting has been a continuation based on minutiae. as was last night. the fact that it got passed in this fashion is criminal, imo.
Beach Lover
JohnR, i agree with your summary
SJ, thank you, and I admire you for wading thru all the rules & regs .... I don't have the ability to do so & then see how the majority of the BCC just ignores them, without turning purple with outrage
I really hoped that there was enough evidence easily at hand this time for the planning staff & the BCC to 'just say no' for once, but it just doesn't happen. And they didn't even hold the applicant's feet to the fire, but made it easy it sounds like. Cindy acknowledged that they've still never seen the whole thing on paper?!? Of course! Why didn't I think of that?!? Then they can just make you do what you agreed to .... if you never show 'em, it's an even bigger free-for-all.
MAYBE some day the County will understand that enforcing the rules & holding the line on overdevelopment will be positive, desirable, will protect what we've got here ....maybe some day, but I'm afraid it'll be long after I'm outa here.
After my anger subsides, this whole business makes me very, very sad.
SJ, thank you, and I admire you for wading thru all the rules & regs .... I don't have the ability to do so & then see how the majority of the BCC just ignores them, without turning purple with outrage
I really hoped that there was enough evidence easily at hand this time for the planning staff & the BCC to 'just say no' for once, but it just doesn't happen. And they didn't even hold the applicant's feet to the fire, but made it easy it sounds like. Cindy acknowledged that they've still never seen the whole thing on paper?!? Of course! Why didn't I think of that?!? Then they can just make you do what you agreed to .... if you never show 'em, it's an even bigger free-for-all.
MAYBE some day the County will understand that enforcing the rules & holding the line on overdevelopment will be positive, desirable, will protect what we've got here ....maybe some day, but I'm afraid it'll be long after I'm outa here.
After my anger subsides, this whole business makes me very, very sad.
SoWal ExpertAuthor
In the words of Commissioner Meadow, "this is a trainwreck."
For the record, Jimmy, I've been purple for a few years.
For the record, Jimmy, I've been purple for a few years.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Folks, take the time to read through SJ's information. Chapter 8 is only 5 pages long and is written very clearly.
As I understand the situation:
1. The 4 lots the beach club will be on are zoned Residential Preservation,
2. The existing use of those lots is currently defined as non-conforming use,
3. It is the desire of the county (according to the Land Development Code (LDC)) to gradually eliminate non-conforming uses,
4. Non-conforming uses cannot be enlarged or improved to the extent that the investment makes them more permanent structures,
5. If 50% of existing structures on non-conforming uses are destroyed by any means they cannot be rebuilt and new structures must be in complete conformance with the LDC,
6. To be in conformance with the LDC and being zoned Residential Preservation, only one residence per lot is allowed.
If I have this right, then my only remaining question is how the heck are the commissioner's jobs defined? Okay, one more question: If this is allowed, what will keep these commissioners from approving huge condo complexes in some of the public parks (or similar areas) if they are allowed to completely ignore the codes? :idontno:
As I understand the situation:
1. The 4 lots the beach club will be on are zoned Residential Preservation,
2. The existing use of those lots is currently defined as non-conforming use,
3. It is the desire of the county (according to the Land Development Code (LDC)) to gradually eliminate non-conforming uses,
4. Non-conforming uses cannot be enlarged or improved to the extent that the investment makes them more permanent structures,
5. If 50% of existing structures on non-conforming uses are destroyed by any means they cannot be rebuilt and new structures must be in complete conformance with the LDC,
6. To be in conformance with the LDC and being zoned Residential Preservation, only one residence per lot is allowed.
If I have this right, then my only remaining question is how the heck are the commissioner's jobs defined? Okay, one more question: If this is allowed, what will keep these commissioners from approving huge condo complexes in some of the public parks (or similar areas) if they are allowed to completely ignore the codes? :idontno:
Edited
SoWal ExpertAuthor
pjurney, you state it more simply than I. I am still purple and the story is project has so many flaws, that my mind goes from one tanget of this trainwreck to the next. You summarize if well.
SoWal Insider
I'm going to read through the LDC parts mentioned but I'm also wondering, where is the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in regards to this parcel? Any potential violations of Department of Environmental Protection CCCL development rules would certainly fall under state oversight. Was there any discussion about this at the meeting? And how the heck can one dig into a dune to build parking? :confused:
SoWal ExpertAuthor
TFT, according to the maps, at that property, the CCCL runs parallel with the beach, located about 135 ft off of the 30A right of way on the west side, and about 151 ft off of 30A right of way on the east side. By looking at the map, it will cut the proposed buildings in half.
No, that was never brought up, nor was the fact that their seawall is on County property along with a small pavilion. What was brought up was the fact that one of the existing buildings currently is positioned partially on County property.
As for the underground parking in the dunes, I should point out that the entire property currently sets on top of dunes.
No, that was never brought up, nor was the fact that their seawall is on County property along with a small pavilion. What was brought up was the fact that one of the existing buildings currently is positioned partially on County property.
As for the underground parking in the dunes, I should point out that the entire property currently sets on top of dunes.
Edited
SoWal Insider
TFT, according to the maps, at that property, the CCCL runs parallel with the beach, located about 135 ft off of the 30A right of way on the west side, and about 151 ft off of 30A right of way on the east side. By looking at the map, it will cut the proposed buildings in half.
No, that was never brought up, nor was the fact that their seawall is on County property along with a small pavilion. What was brought up was the fact that one of the existing buildings currently is positioned partially on County property.
As for the underground parking in the dunes, I should point out that the entire property currently sets on top of dunes.
If this is true, then it appears that the DEP will have some major problems with this beach club.
From the DEP website, a summary:
"The Coastal Construction Control Line Program (CCCL) is an essential element of Florida's coastal management program. It provides protection for Florida's beaches and dunes while assuring reasonable use of private property. Recognizing the value of the state?s beaches, the Florida legislature initiated the Coastal Construction Control Line Program to protect the coastal system from improperly sited and designed structures which can destabilize or destroy the beach and dune system. Once destabilized, the valuable natural resources are lost, as are its important values for recreation, upland property protection and environmental habitat. Adoption of a coastal construction control line establishes an area of jurisdiction in which special siting and design criteria are applied for construction and related activities. These standards may be more stringent than those already applied in the rest of the coastal building zone because of the greater forces expected to occur in the more seaward zone of the beach during a storm event."
The DEP, the attorney general's office, and governor Crist's office obviously must be alerted to what's going on. Carving out underground parking in the dunes? Good lord.
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Keep in mind that I am basing my info on building location upon what the representative for Nature Walk was stating. They had no handout containing the info. (I guess it is easier not to get caught in the wrong that way.) What I recall was that the building set back from the rear of the lot was 20Ft and their building was going to be something like 22 ft back from the property line, thereby placing it in the CCCL. Currently, one of the buildings is on County property, not conforming to the set backs.
SoWal Insider
Folks, take the time to read through SJ's information. Chapter 8 is only 5 pages long and is written very clearly.
As I understand the situation:
1. The 4 lots the beach club will be on are zoned Residential Preservation,
2. The existing use of those lots is currently defined as non-conforming use,
3. It is the desire of the county (according to the Land Development Code (LDC)) to gradually eliminate non-conforming uses,
4. Non-conforming uses cannot be enlarged or improved to the extent that the investment makes them more permanent structures,
5. If 50% of existing structures on non-conforming uses are destroyed by any means they cannot be rebuilt and new structures must be in complete conformance with the LDC,
6. To be in conformance with the LDC and being zoned Residential Preservation, only one residence per lot is allowed.
If I have this right, then my only remaining question is how the heck are the commissioner's jobs defined? Okay, one more question: If this is allowed, what will keep these commissioners from approving huge condo complexes in some of the public parks (or similar areas) if they are allowed to completely ignore the codes? :idontno:
Very well-written summary pgurney. Looks accurate to me. Sadly. :(
Beach Fanatic
I've been observing this trend for several years.....allow it in sowal so that nowal can remain the same.....:(
Beach Fanatic
I don?t understand where the money is coming from. The last time I drove through Nature Walk not a single home was under construction, and no one except one lonesome sales person was in the office. How can the developer undertake a project of this magnitude in today?s market?:idontno:
It will be horrible if this property becomes a partially-completed, weed infested, abandoned eyesore.
It will be horrible if this property becomes a partially-completed, weed infested, abandoned eyesore.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.