Children playing in Damaged House on Dune

[Miss Kitty]

from Donna

And doesn't that just make you want to be a planner? :roll:


...I just hope you were planning on going to bed soon!!!!

Quite an interesting story though. I still don't understand why the owners are allowed to let what is left of their houses remain standing (or is that falling?).

 

[Smiling JOe]

Many of these houses are what planners call legal nonconforming, meaning they could not be approved under the current zoning and other regulations. This status means the structures can remain indefinitely in their existing "footprint," but cannot be enlarged and sometimes they cannot be moved. If the house is destroyed (for any reason), it can be rebuilt in that footprint. There is an assumption with such structures and uses that eventually they will cease to exist and the underlying land will then be developed only under the current ordinances and regulations. If the structure or use is abandoned for a continuous period of time (usually six months), then the legal nonconforming status is lost and cannot be re-established.

Legal nonconforming properties should always have an accurate survey so that the footprint and size of the structure is well defined in an official document. Without a survey or an existing structure, it can be difficult to prove the "footprint." Many planners claim they have never seen a request for legal nonconforming status that actually meets the burden of proof, which can be quite cumbersome. A survey would be the solution, not that expensive and could save the owners a lot of delay and cost should they reconstruct.

Donna, your description given above is the way I understand Walton County's non-conforming uses too. One note of difference is that a non-conforming improvement can be enlarged via building upward, if within the height limits, but the footprint must remain equal size or smaller.

 

[TooFarTampa]

Donna, your description given above is the way I understand Walton County's non-conforming uses too. One note of difference is that a non-conforming improvement can be enlarged via building upward, if within the height limits, but the footprint must remain equal size or smaller.

But why on earth would someone be committed to rebuilding on a footprint on a portion of the land that is already undermined? Do some people really think that a retaining wall or seawall will make it all better, then they can just rebuild in the same spot?

 

[Smiling JOe]

But why on earth would someone be committed to rebuilding on a footprint on a portion of the land that is already undermined? Do some people really think that a retaining wall or seawall will make it all better, then they can just rebuild in the same spot?

Yes they do think like that, and they do rebuild or at least repair on that spot of loose sand.

 

[Paula]

Thanks CCK. I know Mr. CCK gets the job done! (and done well). You know I'm a happy camper -- get it "camper" :funn: (It's not really that funny, I just wanted to use that smiley). Sadly, I had to google backhoe to figure out what that is.

And thanks, Donna, for the explanation -- useful and makes sense.

My hunch is that the person doesn't plan to rebuild in the same footprint anyway (It was a great view and a nice small 50s - 70s ranch home but the building itself wasn't worth much compared to the property). The property is worth so much that whatever he did with that space, he'd come out ahead because I think he owned the property for a long time. He's an older guy who has had some problems lately (sad life stuff that happens as a person ages), but the town can help him along with his decisions by giving him options and deadlines. And perhaps he has grown children who could help him out if he needs help. I heard he's a physician so understanding the issues and problems and trade-offs and sense of responsibility should be well within his grasp. Of course, this is what I think the situation is. I met him once -- a nice guy from what I can tell. Anyway, no reason not to fix the situation as soon as possible before someone (or several people) get hurt or killed. If it wasn't so dangerous, it could be an interesting hurricane tourist attraction because it's fascinating to see.

 

[Smiling JOe]

You may not be able to see it in this smaller photo from Blue Mtn Bch posted below, but those boards on the beach are filled with exposed nails. I cannot imagine why debris like this is allowed to remain on the beach for any length of time. The other day, the water was washing up to some of the construction debris and ready to take a few pieces out to see or to be covered in the sand. From now on, I will keep my shoes on when entering the beaches in Blue Mtn., not that my shoes will prevent a nail going through my feet, but make it will help with the smaller stuff. Earlier, I posted the pile of concrete on the beach in Blue Mtn, which looks like a fun place for a kid to climb. I would hate for a kid to get killed after one of the huge chuncks on top fall onto a kid.

WaterColor doesn't even allow this kind of debris to be on the property if it is not in a covered dumpster. Why can't we insist that this dangerous debris be removed on the same day it is torn away from a structure? I wonder if the homeowners even know their personal exposure to risk. Easily winnable lawsuits waiting all over the place.

 

[DBOldford]

SJ, correct about height not necessarily being controlled via the legal nonconforming status. The emphasis is on "footprint," which is the at-grade coverage of the structure. However, most ordinances do not allow for increases in sq. ft., either and that would calculate with most significant increases in structural heights.

I agree with your point about the debris. In fact, husband and I had our tetanus shots right before going down last October. You don't have to get a rusty nail to contract tetanus and it is a nasty cootie. Probably a good idea for anyone walking the beaches to have a current innoculation.

And yes, Sueshore, that post was the result of an unusual bout of insomnia. Happens when I have a hearing coming right up. I was embarrased to send it!

 

[katie blue]

I spoke with Lee Paul (I believe that was his name?) today in Building and Planning. (Code enforcement referred me to him.) He says that they went out and took pictures the other day when the other calls came in. There are "several people working on this case", he says, but for some reason the house is still not condemned, strangely. He mentioned something about it having to go through the DEP next for the next step, and that it may get held up altogether by turtle season.

Paula, CCK is right, since we were there last in Feb, most of the remaining house/roof has collapsed on itself, crushing what was left of the living room where the children were playing a couple weeks ago. Basically a rubble heap of hazmat from the beach side now. Here's hoping something can be done before more kids arrive.

 

[SHELLY]

He mentioned something about it having to go through the DEP next for the next step, and that it may get held up altogether by turtle season.

Will the same hold true for seawall & geotube construction? That excuse weak at best.

 

[Paula]

Thanks for all the updates. It's an interesting tourist attraction, as long as everyone stays far away from it (and, as I said, these caved in houses on the dunes are in several places along 30A). That said, there are much better and safe tourist attractions.