County sued for $3 Million+

[Andy A]

I never said (in this thread) that we should have a revolution. I just said it's never bad to question authority. Questioning authority isn't the same as a revolution or anarchy, it's actually a good thing to do from time to time.

I see nothing wrong with what you say and agree with this above. Sometimes, to me, it is how you say something more than what you say. Also, it depends in what light you question authority. In the military, you do not question authority when given an order though many times you would like to do so. On the football field it is not wise to question the authority of the coach if you are a player. Just my drift.

 

[Andy A]

WRONG!!!!!! Staff report given to the Technical Review Board Aug. 2007 after two years of meeting with the planning department states in writing, no compatibility study needed, no height restriction for this project, no neighborhood meeting required, I'm sure the applicants would have been required to do these things before they were allowed to move forward to TRC if planning had put it in their report. I'm sure it takes a lot of time and money to prepare a project to the county's liking before they will let it move forward to TRC. Look up Rural VILLAGE, the rules are all there. If planning had a problem don't you think it would they would
have made SOME mention of it.

RIGHT!!!! It is not the TRC, the Planning department or the Planning Commission who make the decision regarding the approval of any land use project in this county. It is the COUNTY COMMISSIONERS who make that decision and only after a quasi-judicial public hearing is held regarding the project. At this time such things as violations of the wettlands, other environmental impact such as storm water drain off and neighborhood COMPATIBILITY can be presented by all interested or even non affected parties to the Commission. There are cases where the Planning Commission makes an affirmative recommendation and the Commission disapproves the recommendation based on what is presented at the public hearing. With the land use codes we have in Walton County nothing is cut in stone as they are vague, contradicting, and in some cases, downright useless. In short, we need zoning.

 

[Dragnet]

RIGHT!!!! It is not the TRC, the Planning department or the Planning Commission who make the decision regarding the approval of any land use project in this county. It is the COUNTY COMMISSIONERS who make that decision and only after a quasi-judicial public hearing is held regarding the project. At this time such things as violations of the wettlands, other environmental impact such as storm water drain off and neighborhood COMPATIBILITY can be presented by all interested or even non affected parties to the Commission. There are cases where the Planning Commission makes an affirmative recommendation and the Commission disapproves the recommendation based on what is presented at the public hearing. With the land use codes we have in Walton County nothing is cut in stone as they are vague, contradicting, and in some cases, downright useless. In short, we need zoning.

Not even a sticky note from Pat Blackshier to the Technical Review Committee or to the-TAXPAYERS (Applicants) at this point in the process? It's the planning department rules that we all follow. The Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan tells us what to do. Us taxpayers have to follow the rules, if we don't, we won't move forward in the process, but the Walton Co. planning dept. can change the rules as they want? If Walton Co. planning dept. is OK with a project and if they move it forward with no comments to the Technical Review Committee and there is nothing the applicants need to address, and then come out and change the story, I kind of wonder if I still live in the United States Of America?

 

[Andy A]

Dragnet, you obviously didn't read my post or chose to ignore it, one of the two. I am very conversant with land use code usage and zoning and I am also sure they both are subject to a wide variance of interpretation. That is why this lawsuit in the first place. That and to cost taxpayers money and make a few lawyers and the filers of the suit, they hope, rich.

 

[Smiling JOe]

WRONG!!!!!! Staff report given to the Technical Review Board Aug. 2007 after two years of meeting with the planning department states in writing, no compatibility study needed, no height restriction for this project, no neighborhood meeting required, I'm sure the applicants would have been required to do these things before they were allowed to move forward to TRC if planning had put it in their report. I'm sure it takes a lot of time and money to prepare a project to the county's liking before they will let it move forward to TRC. Look up Rural VILLAGE, the rules are all there. If planning had a problem don't you think it would they would have made SOME mention of it.

You seem to know so much. Please enlighten us on why the "developer" reduced the original height of the residential building?

 

[Dragnet]

You seem to know so much. Please enlighten us on why the "developer" reduced the original height of the residential building?


Great Question!!! I guess the Circuit Court will find the answer? I can't seem to find it in the Land Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan for Walton Co. for the land category Rural VILLAGE.?

 

[Smiling JOe]

You seem to know so much. Please enlighten us on why the "developer" reduced the original height of the residential building?

Great Question!!! I guess the Circuit Court will find the answer? I can't seem to find it in the Land Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan for Walton Co. for the land category Rural VILLAGE.?

Why wait for the Circuit Court to find the answer? It is in the testimony given at one of the BCC meetings on this project, testimony given by both the Planning Dept AND the developer's representative. They knew that height was going to be an issue, and the developers reduced the proposed building height to try and be looked at with more favor when they got to the BCC.

 

[AAbsolute]

Why wait for the Circuit Court to find the answer? It is in the testimony given at one of the BCC meetings on this project, testimony given by both the Planning Dept AND the developer's representative. They knew that height was going to be an issue, and the developers reduced the proposed building height to try and be looked at with more favor when they got to the BCC.

The applicants project was not rejected based upon structure height. Don't attempt to set up a false premise.
__________________

"Mommy, what is God's last name?" -- my 3-year old, inquisitive nephew

Are there 2 SmilingJoes on Sowal??
​

 

[Smiling JOe]

The applicants project was not rejected based upon structure height. Don't attempt to set up a false premise.

I am not setting up a false premise. Statements on this thread were made about the County not raising so much as a sticky-note of caution, yet the developers were told that height would be an issue, and according to testimony by the developers and the Planning Staff, the developers lowered the original proposed height because of the potential problem of height, flagged by Planning Staff.

 

[AAbsolute]

I am not setting up a false premise. Statements on this thread were made about the County not raising so much as a sticky-note of caution, yet the developers were told that height would be an issue, and according to testimony by the developers and the Planning Staff, the developers lowered the original proposed height because of the potential problem of height, flagged by Planning Staff.

Thanks for being clear. You know I believe the County rushed in the height ordinance North of the bay deliberately relating to this project. I think you believe the height ordinance North of the bay is not related to this project. You're on one side and I'm on the other. We may never know which of us is actually correct about this narrow question.