Doodle Harris wants to change zoning; Increase densities in Old Seagrove

I assume this will set a precedent that will allow all kinds of more dense development here in Seagrove. We are opposed to this, not so much for the projects but for the Pandora's box I am afraid they will open.

So, David, I guess you're talking about the lot that his pool and parking area occupies and the empty lot that used to say "Seacrest Guests" and now says "Harris Family and Guests Only"?

Maybe you have the influence to fight this, but I learned long ago that I don't. Money is power. From what I've seen on many occasions, local government officials tend to let people with boatloads of money do whatever they want. They'll allow him to load up his two lots at the cost of the character of the neighborhood. It's not like he needs the money (or maybe his taxes were more than expected and he does?).

Funny that I've heard the name Doodle Harris twice in one day, and both times the reference to his name makes me want to barf. :puke:

Thanks to the shenanigans of Doodle and his "Big Canoe, Inc." corporation several years ago, we just lost a public beach access in Seagrove. As far as I know, the five foot easement to the west of Sugar Cliffs property was a publically dedicated beach access since at least the early-mid 90's. The County maintained the access, even rebuilt it after Ivan (or whatever the hurricane was around that time that took out many of the walkovers). It was a well-travelled public access. A few years ago the private homeowners in Sugar Cliffs sued (Case Number 01CA000478, Sugar Cliffs Owners Assoc. vs. Walton County) stating that the easement on which the walkover was built was never properly recorded. Thanks to Doodle not following the statutory procedure for dedication of the easement back in the 90's, the courts have turned the land and the walkover over to Sugar Cliffs. Howard Carr was somehow involved in the supposed deal, but I'm not clear as to his involvement. I do know that Howard Carr was a defendant in this case, as was the Cassine Owner's Associations. Cassine had an interest in keeping the walkover public, as it is directly across the street.

BR is so right - local government officials DO let people with boatloads of money do whatever they want. In this case, they've permanently taken away a public beach access and handed it on a silver platter to the rich. Sure hope this doesn't catch on. Money talks.

As far as Doodle's two new proposed developments go, I'm sure he doesn't give a rat's behind about the effects on the "character" of the neighborhood as long as it lines his pockets. :bang: :bang:

The same thing is happening in Blue Mountain Beach. The beachfront single-family home site once owned by the Cawthon family on Blue Mountain Road is now for sale by B.J. Development, LLC as a development opportunity. The Blu' Biscayne. Their sign says the property allows up to three residential units. Ms. Cawthon sold her home after the county inappropriatly allowed a lot split on the property adjacent to her home on the east, next to the Blue Mountain Beach highway 83 beach access. That site double in density to 4 single-family homes, which did not fit within the allowed setbacks.

And where is the Coastal High Hazard area? Is it not on the beach? How can we be increasing density in the most susceptible area we have? When all this new density on the coast is damaged by storms who pays in the way of higher insurance bills?

But the county says because of the changes made in 1996 to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) this single beach front lot with a single structure can now have three structures. This is because the designation of the site was changed to Infill, which allows up to 6 units per acre, in 1996.

Of course all of these changes, all this increased density, alters the look and feel of our communities. They change where we live but the powers that be keep approving the changes. The increased density also impacts stormwater management issues, traffic on our roads and parking. The increased density impacts hurricane evacuation times. But the county keeps allowing developers to increase density.

And where is the Coastal High Hazard area? Is it not on the beach? How can we be increasing density in the most susceptible area we have? When all this new density on the coast is damaged by storms who pays in the way of higher insurance bills?

I hope people who come to the meetings make this point. Loudly.

Please note that the signs on his lots say that the planning meeting is on June 8th, and the BCC meeting is on the 12th. I think both meetings are at the Courthouse Annex. So it's important that people attend the meeting on the 8th. As a previous poster said, if the zoning is changed, we're one step closer to having condos instead of homes along the beachfront in Old Seagrove. This would completely change the character of the area.

So, David, I guess you're talking about the lot that his pool and parking area occupies and the empty lot that used to say "Seacrest Guests" and now says "Harris Family and Guests Only"?

It's also the lots on the beach between Seaside and Seagrove. He owns the empty lots there and the first small white house in Seagrove.

Please note that the signs on his lots say that the planning meeting is on June 8th, and the BCC meeting is on the 12th. I think both meetings are at the Courthouse Annex. So it's important that people attend the meeting on the 8th. As a previous poster said, if the zoning is changed, we're one step closer to having condos instead of homes along the beachfront in Old Seagrove. This would completely change the character of the area.

I guess it the condos will fit right in with the new "Downtown Seagrove." :bang:

Sounds like we need some new county commissioners who aren't in the developers pockets. Can anyone name a delevopement that's not been allowed. But we'll attend to annouce our displeasure of any zoning changes.

I don't know where the property falls related to the coastal construction line, but I am familiar with the location of those properties and a zoning change there is just irresponsible. I can't even believe the DEP would allow such a thing. Part of the "blame" for all the dune misery of the past two hurricane seasons has fallen to the very old zoning that set up the subdivisions in Seagrove and BMB initially, combined with the fact that since Opal, a good chunk of protective dune systems has been lost. The old zoned lots are much closer to the Gulf than they were when the plats were drawn decades ago.

But to rezone those old lots now for higher density along the Gulf? You have got to be kidding me. Have we learned nothing from the past two years?

I hope at least the county commisioners will see clearly that this is a BAD idea. The last thing we need is more armoring and more seawalls, and that has to be where this would lead if higher density were allowed.

I don't know where the property falls related to the coastal construction line, but I am familiar with the location of those properties and a zoning change there is just irresponsible.

i suspect the ccl hasn't been redrawn either and is now somewhere out in the gulf, and that fits with the old zoning that was set when the beach was a quarter mile that-a-way

If you know the parcel number for a particular piece of property, how do you find out the zoning ordinances for parcel? In particular, how do you find out how it is zoned in terms of density? And how do you find out about height restrictions for the parcel?

If you know the parcel number for a particular piece of property, how do you find out the zoning ordinances for parcel? In particular, how do you find out how it is zoned in terms of density? And how do you find out about height restrictions for the parcel?

Height restrictions are the same for all of SoWal, and they are considering making it universal for all of Walton Co. Zoning can be determined ut by submitting a zoning identification request to the Planning Dept for WalCo. There is an easier way, but it is way too complicated to teach you how to do it on your own.

Height restrictions are the same for all of SoWal, and they are considering making it universal for all of Walton Co. Zoning can be determined ut by submitting a zoning identification request to the Planning Dept for WalCo. There is an easier way, but it is way too complicated to teach you how to do it on your own.

I was hoping there was a way to do it at http://clerkofcourts.co.walton.fl.us or http://www.co.walton.fl.us or http://www.qpublic.net/walton/.

Height restrictions are the same for all of SoWal, and they are considering making it universal for all of Walton Co. Zoning can be determined ut by submitting a zoning identification request to the Planning Dept for WalCo. There is an easier way, but it is way too complicated to teach you how to do it on your own.

This may be a dumb question and I may have missed it on another thread, but how did One Seagrove get by the height restriction? Was there maybe no restriction at the time it was built? :idontno:

This may be a dumb question and I may have missed it on another thread, but how did One Seagrove get by the height restriction? Was there maybe no restriction at the time it was built? :idontno:

That's what I've always assumed. I'm sure SJ knows.

This may be a dumb question and I may have missed it on another thread, but how did One Seagrove get by the height restriction? Was there maybe no restriction at the time it was built? :idontno:

you are correct.

I was hoping there was a way to do it at http://clerkofcourts.co.walton.fl.us or http://www.co.walton.fl.us or http://www.qpublic.net/walton/.

I was curious so I checked out the property card for our vacant lot at the Walton Co. property appraiser website. It does have a section for "Land Use." According to the website our lot is zoned "SFR Resort," which I assume stands for single family residential resort. However, I went to the county's Land Development Code, also available online, and tried to find the classification for SFR Resort but was unsuccessful.

I did see that the standard code calls for no more than two units per acre in residential, but of course that seems to have no relation to anything in SoWal. I'm sure the "resort" designation means something different, but I couldn't find out what. It is not part of Old Seagrove but it is nearby -- probably it was platted in the 60s or 70s and has not changed.

The problem with figuring all this out is that so many of the developments in SoWal are PUDs, or Planned Urban Developments. The way it has been explained to me is that each Planned Urban Development has its own set of standards like setbacks and density on file with the county. The PUDs are approved individually.

Seacrest Beach, where our house is located, is a PUD. It was, incidentally, developed in part by Doodle Harris. The original PUD allowed for essentially zero lotlines for the large parcel directly behind our house, which has led to a 21-unit condo being built so close to our property that the distance from our back fence to the edge of the balconies is only 7 feet. We called code enforcement and the county planners as soon as we saw what was happening, but they provided documentation saying they approved the project because the original PUD from 1997 pretty much gives the developers of the condo the right to put the building where they did. :bang: They county may not have liked the idea of it being there but they told me they had no choice.

This is why zoning meetings are so important. The time to have your voice heard is NOW.

I wonder what it means in terms of zoning if the Land Use is OCN FT (obviously oceanfront) or HWY 30-A? Just clicking parcel by parcel on the parcel map in large area where there are only single-family houses, some houses/parcels near us adjacent to 30-A are designated with a Land Use of "HWY 30-A" and others are SFR.