County sued for $3 Million+

[Smiling JOe]

If you think about it, the lawyers have potential to make more money with a lawsuit, than they did by representing the applicant for the submission of this development. (I'm not suggesting that an attorney would want their applicants' development to be rejected in order to make more money, because that wouldn't get the attorneys much future business, but it is interesting that they would stand to get paid more by winning a lawsuit, or settling out of Court. As someone else mentioned, the applicants, too, would stand to gain more money by winning a lawsuit or settling out of Court, than they would by developing this property in this current market. )

 

[noplacelikehome]

The release discussed in this thread

Walton County, Florida Served with $3.35 Million Bert Harris Claim from Jolly Bay LLC

Print article Refer to a friend
? Business Wire 2008

2008-12-17 20:27:03 -

www.jollybay.com - Landowner Jolly Bay LLC, a company dedicated to responsible and sustainable growth for Walton County and its residents, has filed a notice of claim for $3,350,000.00 against Walton County, Florida under Florida's Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act. The Bert J. Harris Act provides for monetary compensation, including attorneys' fees​

​

and costs, to private property owners when changing County regulations diminish the value of private property. The claim and two previously filed lawsuits against the County by Jolly Bay are the result of the County's September 22, 2008 denial of its mixed use development.​

"Jolly Bay was unfairly treated by the County and the Bert Harris Act was adopted by the Legislature to give landowners like Jolly Bay a legal remedy," said Ronald Weaver of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A, attorneys specializing in Bert Harris claims and land use litigation. "Dozens of Florida governments are facing hundreds of millions of dollars of combined claims for interfering illegally with property owners' legitimate rights."​

Weaver explained that over a two-year period the landowners and County staff met numerous times to discuss the design of the project and up until the point of public opposition to the height of the proposed condominium, County staff affirmed that the project and proposed condominium met all County requirements. In reaction to the public opposition at a time when the County had no adopted height limitation that could be lawfully applied to the project, Weaver further explained, County staff made up and changed un-adopted rules and standards over a year period as they delayed the project. Although the citizens' own Planning Commission voted unanimously for the project, the Board of County Commissioners, after an initial motion to approve the project, ultimately applied a made-up, un-adopted height standard to deny the project. "My clients spent in good faith over $625,000.00 on the application process based on the County staff's repeated affirmations and the clear lack of any applicable height limitation in the adopted regulations," said Weaver.​

"What is most troubling," Weaver added, "is that Walton County's action in denying the project based on an un-adopted, subjective height standard is directly contrary to the Circuit Court's previous clear instructions to Walton County in the 2001 Inlet Beach Capital case.? In the 2001 Inlet Beach Capital case, the Circuit Court reversed the Walton County Board of County Commissioners' denial of a project and told Walton County that it cannot base the denial of projects on its own un-adopted subjective interpretations of its land use regulations because landowners must have notice of the conditions that they must meet in order to improve their property.​

Weaver further added that the County has 180 days to respond to the notice of claim with a written settlement offer acceptable to the owners, or Jolly Bay LLC will have no other choice but to go to the court system with a third lawsuit against the County and seek over $3.35 million in damages, plus additional attorneys' fees and costs.​

The Jolly Bay project is located 1/2 mile from the northeast 331 bridge landing off Jolly Bay Road and included an upscale recreational vehicle park, a bed & breakfast, a 73-unit condominium, a boat docking facility and commercial spaces. The plans had the project situated on 17 acres of a 60-acre tract of land in order to preserve 43 acres of natural beauty, and to ensure the integrity of, and compatibility with, the surrounding area.​

Jolly Bay LLC is represented by Dana Matthews and Scott Work of Matthews & Hawkins, P.A., at 850-837-3662, by Barbara Wihite and Ron Weaver of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., at 813-223-4800 and by Robert Apgar and David Jordan of Greenburg Traurig, P.A., at 850-222-6891.​

 

[Smiling JOe]

Jolly Bay LLC, a company dedicated to responsible and sustainable growth for Walton County and its residents

I wonder where they came up with that. Find me one thing they have done to show this.

The plans had the project situated on 17 acres of a 60-acre tract of land in order to preserve 43 acres of natural beauty, and to ensure the integrity of, and compatibility with, the surrounding area.

They make it sound so rosy and pink. The reason why they were planning to situate the property on the 17 acres, is because the rest of the property is wetlands and cannot be impacted without mitigating land. I love how they say it's to "preserve 43 acres of natural beauty," when thy planned on building a big condo building (neither natural nor beautiful in any way), over-looking an RV campground. Sounds like some lofty marketing scheme going on.

"What is most troubling," Weaver added, "is that Walton County's action in denying the project based on an un-adopted, subjective height standard is directly contrary to the Circuit Court's previous clear instructions to Walton County in the 2001 Inlet Beach Capital case.?

Where the heck did they come up with this statement? The County rejected the project based on things other than building height, such as non-compatibility. The parcel is zoned as rural, yet the applicants' "experts" testified that this property was not really rural, and that it was in actuality, urban. Talk about a stretch. The actual project, as submitted, was more urban, though with the RV, had a rural and commercial aspect, though the property, as mentioned, is zoned rural.

 

[Andy A]

That depends. Are you wondering how you can get neighbors' thoughts, or the County's. Also, when you say "prior to submitting for the DO," do you mean to the Planning Dept, Planning Commission, or the BCC?

Should be all three. The problem, IMO, is that citizens do not understand the esthetic value and the need for properly controlled growth and development. From all I have heard at BCC meetings, its a no brainer. Jolly Bay LLC is wrong and not acting in the interest of the neighborhood and citizens of Walton County. That being said, does anyone have utter faith in our judicial system? No one knows how the court will react. Does anyone believe that judges will someday go back to throwing frivilous lawsuits out of their courts? I can guarantee one thing out of this case and its a positive. The lawyers and their firms will make a ton of money. Unfortunately, it is yours and mine as taxpayers. While I am at it, does anyone think a lawyer will ever tell someone your case is not viable. As long as the money is right, I doubt it. Obviously, I have little use for most of our barristers. I rank most of them right below used car salesman at a shady used car lot.

 

[grace]

I wonder where they came up with that. Find me one thing they have done to show this.
I'm not sure these 'developers' have done anything else. Back in the boom, any landowner could dub themself a developer.


They make it sound so rosy and pink. The reason why they were planning to situate the property on the 17 acres, is because the rest of the property is wetlands and cannot be impacted without mitigating land. I love how they say it's to "preserve 43 acres of natural beauty," when thy planned on building a big condo building (neither natural nor beautiful in any way), over-looking an RV campground. Sounds like some lofty marketing scheme going on.

Exactly!!!!

 

[Matt J]

Anybody look up the LLC on sunbiz.org?

MY understanding is that they had approval up to the BCC hearing based on the fact that the designs met code. Once the hearing in front of the BCC occurs it is open to the public and the BCC is making it's final decision based on public input. In this case the public didn't want it so it was denied.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I've looked it up. It is two individuals, aka- the applicants, and they have no development history.

Design may have met Code, but the project doesn't meet compatibility, as is required by Code. Public input was given, but public input rarely amounts to anything, unless real evidence is given in testimony. This case had plenty of testimony given by the public, showing how the project was not compatible, and didn't meet some basic requirements, such as the rules for this project being on a road which is not a feeder road by definition. As is, that property and the surrounding properties allow goats and pigs to be on the property if one wishes. Building a major housing development, urban in style and use, doesn't fit next to what could be a pig pen.

Again, height didn't stop this project, compatibility, along with some other fine details did stop it, and rightly so, according to the Land-use Code.

 

[noplacelikehome]

So, Smiling JOe, you don't think it is wrong for the county planning department to lead these people on for two years and say they can do what they want because they are following the code only then to have the BCC shut it down. Then you are saying the BCC is untouchable and you agree? The county commissioners don't have to follow the rules but we as citizens do? I'm confused here, do you want your property rights taken from you? So what's yours is mine? Wow that would be awesome....when can we meet....more for me. Also, wisdom tells me that you should do your homework on the whole process of what went on in those two years prior to denial before spouting off.

 

[Shockleysprings]

Sovereign Immunity! Sad but true.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Noplacelikehome,
According to the testimony given by Planning Staff, there was no misleading of the applicants. Did you actually attend the meetings? What about the meetings, prior to the BCC meetings?

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I believe the BCC is untouchable. Care to elaborate? The BCC finally DID follow the rules. In what way do you say they didn't?

What property rights were taken from these people? Is the Walton County Land Use Code stealing rights from people?

So, which one of the applicants or applicant's representatives are you?