Jolly Bay PUD denial stands court test

[Smiling JOe]

Carl, nice try, but the county just saved you a ton of money by not approving your proposal. If your project met all of the rules, why did you lower the height of the original building? That seems very weird since there was no limitation on height for north Walton. Perhaps the real answer is that it didn't conform, which is what the County Commissioners said.

 

[scooterbug44]

The project was a joke - don't try to sway public opinion by now claiming it will bring jobs, taxes, and investment to Walton County.

P.S. How many jobs, services, and projects could the millions you are trying to gouge out of the taxpayers pay for?

 

[Andy A]

The project was a joke - don't try to sway public opinion by now claiming it will bring jobs, taxes, and investment to Walton County.

P.S. How many jobs, services, and projects could the millions you are trying to gouge out of the taxpayers pay for?

I'll go even further than this. The project is a matter of pure greed. There is no consideration of the land use code or further long range planning in the Jolly Bay project. It is anything but Jolly. The letter to the Sun was misleading in many aspects. It stated the Court allowed the project to go forward. The court denied the plantiff's claim but they can continue the suit, the way I read it. The fact remains that once again a private group sues the taxpayers of Walton County and then has the nerve and audacity to tell us what a good deal it is for us taxpayers. All it did was cost us money and make some lawyers richer. There was no thought of future planning whatsoever. Pure selfishness! Lets all hope the days of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours is over in this county!

 

[Kurt]

Jolly Bay PUD denial stands court test
from the Defuniak Herald


By DOTTY NIST
A Walton County Circuit Court judge has concluded that the Sept. 22, 2008, decision of the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to deny approval of the Jolly Bay PUD project was in accordance with due process of law, met essential legal requirements, and was supported by competent substantial evidence.
In a June 8, 2009 decision, Judge W. Howard LaPorte ruled against Jolly Bay PUD's petition for writ of certiorari. The writ had been filed to seek reversal of the BCC decision to deny the project.
Proposed for a 60-acre site one-half mile from the northeast U.S. 331 Bridge landing and off Jolly Bay Road near Freeport, Jolly Bay PUD would have included in its first phase an RV park, a camp store, a laundry/shower building, and a swimming pool with splash pad. Project proponents Kimberly Maxwell and Carl Post also requested approval of a conceptual master plan for the PUD that would have provided for future construction of a restaurant, a bakery/coffee shop, a 20-unit bed and breakfast, office and retail space, a 49-slip boat dock and a 73-unit, 147-foot-tall condominium overlooking the Choctawhatchee Bay.
The 5-0 BCC decision to deny the project had followed a motion by District 1 Commissioner Scott Brannon, based on his opinion that the applicants had not demonstrated that their plan was appropriate for the Rural Village land use classification.
"I just don't see how you make the argument that a highrise is either rural or village," Brannon had commented.
In the petition challenging the denial, Jolly Bay PUD had alleged that the BCC decision had been based on an "un-adopted standard" for building height set by county staff in response to public opposition to the project.
In November 2007, the BCC had voted to impose a 50-foot height limit for new construction in the area north of the bay, a limit previously existing south of the bay. The north-of-the-bay height limit has since sunset and been renewed a number of times without lapse, and the BCC is scheduled to consider non-temporary height limits for the area north of the bay on June 30.
Jolly Bay PUD was not deemed to be bound by these height prohibitions, since the application for the project had been submitted before they were put in place.
In considering Jolly Bay PUD's petition for writ of certiorari, LaPorte noted that in these instances a circuit court has only two options, denial of the petition or or granting it, thereby quashing or nullifying the "order at which the petition is directed."
"It (the court) may not enter any judgment on the merits of the underlying controversy, or direct the lower tribunal to enter any particular order," he wrote. The BCC in this case would be considered the lower tribunal.
Project proponents had argued that they had met with county planners over a two-year period to design the project in keeping with requirements of the Walton County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, prior to submitting an application. Maxwell had testified that the first indication that height of the condominium would be a problem had come in August 2007.
Judge LaPorte disagreed with the petitioners' claim that due process had not been afforded them. This had been argued based on timing of their finding out from county staff that the height of the condominium would be problematic.
It was LaPorte's opinion that "the requirement of procedure due process, notice and opportunity to be heard," had been met by the county.
LaPorte also ruled that, in its decision, the BCC did not depart from the essential requirements of the law, as alleged.
"Upon considering the evidence, the County exercised its authority in finding the urban structure of the project as not compatible with the surrounding area and the Rural Village land use category," he wrote.
Turning to the petitioners' contention of the absence of competent substantial evidence in connection with the BCC decision, Judge LaPorte commented, "It matters not whether there is also---or even more---evidence to support a different conclusion..," but merely whether the record demonstrates that competent substantial evidence existed to support the decision.
LaPorte found that such evidence did exist, in the form of a staff report and the testimony of Pat Blackshear, the planning director, along with the testimony of other county planners, indicating that "the project proposed by the Petitioner was incompatible and should not be allowed in a Rural Village."
In response to the BCC denial of their project, Jolly Bay PUD had targeted the county with a second lawsuit seeking monetary damages, including reimbursement of attorneys' fees and other costs, in connection with alleged "unconstitutional taking" of property and rights violations. That lawsuit is still pending.
Dotty Nist may be contacted at beachbreezenews@gmail.com.

Dotty reports in the Herald this week that Florida's First District Court of Appeals upheld the lower courts decision which favored Walton County outlined above.

Another lawsuit brought against the county by Jolly Bay, LLC is still pending, alleging violation of constitutional rights in connection with the PUD denial. The lawsuit seeks reversal of the denial and payments from the county for alleged "taking" of the property by the county, along with damages.

 

[Matt J]

If I'm reading this correctly and Amendment 4 were in place at the time then the voters could have said no and the county wouldn't be liable, possibly, for millions of dollars in damages?

Just saying.

 

[Kurt]

Jolly Bay a 60 acre PUD approved Development
MLS #545809 $2,200,000

http://ecarmls.com/EmeraldReports/ListitLib/report_builder.aspx


Jolly Bay1230 MLS # 545809
Gorgeous 60 acre bay front DEVELOPMENT tract located on north Choctawhatchee Bay, just east of US 331 Bridge in Walton County, FL. 30 minutes to the new Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport in Bay County and minutes from South Walton Beaches including Grayton, Watercolor, Seaside and Rosemary Beach. The 60 acre parcel has a Planned Unit Development in place with Walton County to include RV resort, 50 unit condominium, 20 room bed and breakfast, 35,000 feet retail/commercial including camp store and restaurant, 49 boat slip dock facility, amphitheater, walking trails, boardwalks and more. This parcel's south boundary includes 900 feet of bay front, with soundings showing deep water access off proposed dock facility. North boundary is over 1400 feet of county road frontage. This project, located along Jolly Bay Road, has an approved traffic light at the intersection of US 331 South of Freeport when four lane project is complete. All engineering, environmental, architectural, surveys and permits are completed and available for review.

 

[scooterbug44]

Isn't it fraud to sell the project by claiming it's an approved PUD and failing to mention that all those "permits, engineering, etc." are worth bupkiss.

 

[Smiling JOe]

It has been approved, but instead of having it be 13+ stories high, they revised it to only four stories, including one level of parking. It will be so out of place for at least 10-20 years, that it won't likely draw many buyers of condos, especially since it will overlook the RV camp.

 

[miznotebook]

The county commission approved conceptual plans for the project in June 2010 and detailed plans for phase I, which includes the RV spaces, camp store, laundry/shower, and swimming pool. The height for the condo proposed for Phase II was reduced to a maximum of 50 feet. The number of units in the condo was reduced from 73 to 50, and the number of RV spaces was reduced from 55 to 50. At that time they estimated that construction on Phase I could start in nine months.

 

[Smiling JOe]

they estimated that construction on Phase I could start in nine months.

Since they are selling it, construction may not happen, though they will have to push some dirt around in order to keep the Development Order, so the RV thing might work, given the lack of RV spots in the general area.