Vizcaya owners dispute encroachment

[Sally]

By Gabriel Tynes

Homeowners in Dune Allen Beach?s Vizcaya development argue their storm armament does not encroach on county property, and they want the state to know it.
Contrary to a Department of Environmental Protection letter sent to the Board of County Commissioners Nov. 9, the owners are disputing the state?s determination that their storm armament encroaches onto county property.
John Dobelek, an engineer representing the Vizcaya Homeowners Association, said surveys and plat records prove the property is private from County Road 30A to the gulf water line. Such documentation would negate the need to seek the county?s approval for a permanent DEP application.
?The only thing I can assume is that [the DEP] is confused with the label of ?government lots,?? Dobelek said.
The survey refl ects the designation of the lots as county property (i.e. ?government lots?) prior to their platting in 1991.
?The surveyors copied plats as they were recorded and those are the words that are on there,? Dobelek concluded. ?It?s probably a language issue.?
The letter to the BCC included 18 Vizcaya properties among 45 in the county that are supposedly encroaching onto public land. Some, such as fi ve neighboring homeowners on Montgomery Street in Seagrove, recognize the encroachment and are negotiating with the county to proceed with the DEP application.
?We are just trying to get the record straight,? Dobelek said.
DEP Press Secretary Sarah Williams said the encroachment designation was reached by information sent in with the application.
?We came to that understanding from the information that was provided,? Williams said. ?These applications have to be submitted with surveys by the owners or their representatives and those are the property boundaries that are recognized.?
Williams said that she was not aware of any dispute of the encroachment designations but that it was an issue that will likely have to be resolved by the county.
?Part of the process is we let the applicants know what might be missing or incorrect,? Williams said. ?But the letter we sent indicated that before we move forward we have to have [the county?s] permission or approval.?
Assistant County Administrator Shirl Williams recently met with federal officials to discuss the county?s habitat preservation plan for seawall installation, but said she was not aware of any developments in the application issue.

 

[BMBWalker]

By Gabriel Tynes

Homeowners in Dune Allen Beach?s Vizcaya development argue their storm armament does not encroach on county property, and they want the state to know it.
Contrary to a Department of Environmental Protection letter sent to the Board of County Commissioners Nov. 9, the owners are disputing the state?s determination that their storm armament encroaches onto county property.
John Dobelek, an engineer representing the Vizcaya Homeowners Association, said surveys and plat records prove the property is private from County Road 30A to the gulf water line. Such documentation would negate the need to seek the county?s approval for a permanent DEP application.
?The only thing I can assume is that [the DEP] is confused with the label of ?government lots,?? Dobelek said.
The survey refl ects the designation of the lots as county property (i.e. ?government lots?) prior to their platting in 1991.
?The surveyors copied plats as they were recorded and those are the words that are on there,? Dobelek concluded. ?It?s probably a language issue.?
The letter to the BCC included 18 Vizcaya properties among 45 in the county that are supposedly encroaching onto public land. Some, such as fi ve neighboring homeowners on Montgomery Street in Seagrove, recognize the encroachment and are negotiating with the county to proceed with the DEP application.
?We are just trying to get the record straight,? Dobelek said.
DEP Press Secretary Sarah Williams said the encroachment designation was reached by information sent in with the application.
?We came to that understanding from the information that was provided,? Williams said. ?These applications have to be submitted with surveys by the owners or their representatives and those are the property boundaries that are recognized.?
Williams said that she was not aware of any dispute of the encroachment designations but that it was an issue that will likely have to be resolved by the county.
?Part of the process is we let the applicants know what might be missing or incorrect,? Williams said. ?But the letter we sent indicated that before we move forward we have to have [the county?s] permission or approval.?
Assistant County Administrator Shirl Williams recently met with federal officials to discuss the county?s habitat preservation plan for seawall installation, but said she was not aware of any developments in the application issue.

Smiling Joe...do your surveys and plat records verify or contradict Mr. Dobelek's statement highlighted in red?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Smiling Joe...do your surveys and plat records verify or contradict Mr. Dobelek's statement highlighted in red?

If you look at the Property Appraiser's online map, it appears that the Homeonwer's Association owns only a portion of the beach, which would probably mean that the remaining part is public. HOWEVER, that map also shows the deeded public beach access no. 2 (not labled on said map) as belonging to the Vizcaya HOA. My best guess is that the WalCo Prop Appraiser's online map is incorrect. Why? See attachment of actual plat of Vizcaya s/d which describes, in the legal description of said property, the property following the mean high water line. It also shows the two public beach accesses to the west(no. 2) and eas(no.1) of Vizcaya.
It does appear that the confusing part for the situation is that the original lots were labled as "gov't lots 33,34, & 35."

Take a look for yourself and tell me if you think otherwise, but from looking at the plat, I believe the lawyer for Vizcaya to be correct in saying that the HOA owns to the mean high water mark with the exception for the public beach accesses, no. 1 and no. 2 (which their lawyer did not mention).

If Vizcaya's storm armament was installed on the property labeled as public beach access no.1 or no. 2, we may have a problem. Maybe that is the reason for the DEP's objection. Only the new survey, which would have been submitted with their application, will show where their armament was installed. Note that the public access 1&2 are easements still owned by the Vizcaya HOA.

I am not sure if the survey showing Vizcaya's beach armament is public record, but the newspaper reporter forgot to report on the DEP's reasons for saying Vizcaya built their armament on property not belonging to Vizacaya. There is still a questionmark on this one, until the survey is shown. Maybe the Walton Sun can get a copy of that survey showing the armament from the lawyer for Vizcaya and post it in the paper, or on SoWal.com.


My original edit was incorrect. Here is the new:

EDIT: According to the Quit Claim Deed OR Book 1514 Page 95, Dune Allen Joint Ventures quit claim all of the Vizcaya property, except for the actual lots 1-32 of Vizcaya, to Vizcaya HOA, this would also include the beach access easements no.'s 3-5, as well as the roads, so in my laymen's opinion, the property mentioned, including the beach, belongs to the Vizcaya HOA. I will attach the Quit Claim Deed.

Will someone else please read this and tell me if I am incorrect?

 

[BMBWalker]

If you look at the Property Appraiser's online map, it appears that the Homeonwer's Association owns only a portion of the beach, which would probably mean that the remaining part is public. HOWEVER, that map also shows the deeded public beach access no. 2 (not labled on said map) as belonging to the Vizcaya HOA. My best guess is that the WalCo Prop Appraiser's online map is incorrect. Why? See attachment of actual plat of Vizcaya s/d which describes, in the legal description of said property, the property following the mean high water line. It also shows the two public beach accesses to the west(no. 2) and eas(no.1) of Vizcaya.
It does appear that the confusing part for the situation is that the original lots were labled as "gov't lots 33,34, & 35."

Take a look for yourself and tell me if you think otherwise, but from looking at the plat, I believe the lawyer for Vizcaya to be correct in saying that the HOA owns to the mean high water mark with the exception for the public beach accesses, no. 1 and no. 2 (which their lawyer did not mention).

If Vizcaya's storm armament was installed on the property labeled as public beach access no.1 or no. 2, we may have a problem. Maybe that is the reason for the DEP's objection. Only the new survey, which would have been submitted with their application, will show where their armament was installed. Note that the public access 1&2 are easements still owned by the Vizcaya HOA.

I am not sure if the survey showing Vizcaya's beach armament is public record, but the newspaper reporter forgot to report on the DEP's reasons for saying Vizcaya built their armament on property not belonging to Vizacaya. There is still a questionmark on this one, until the survey is shown. Maybe the Walton Sun can get a copy of that survey showing the armament from the lawyer for Vizcaya and post it in the paper, or on SoWal.com.


My original edit was incorrect. Here is the new:

EDIT: According to the Quit Claim Deed OR Book 1514 Page 95, Dune Allen Joint Ventures quit claim all of the Vizcaya property, except for the actual lots 1-32 of Vizcaya, to Vizcaya HOA, this would also include the beach access easements no.'s 3-5, as well as the roads, so in my laymen's opinion, the property mentioned, including the beach, belongs to the Vizcaya HOA. I will attach the Quit Claim Deed.

Will someone else please read this and tell me if I am incorrect?

Smiling Joe...thanks for the info; a lot to digest...to be continued!