Tear Downs on 30-A?

I think it has mostly been virgin land, but those days are close to over. There ain't many virgins left, but there are a lot of "razers" out there.

Look at it this way...let's say you own a nice, basic 3-BR/2-BA ranch a short walk to the beach with a Gulf view built in the late-90s. Several years ago you gritted your teeth and paid, oh, $250 K for the place (lotta money in those days).

Now you got realtors telling you they can get you anywhere from $900 K to $1.2 M for the place. In my opinion, any buyer in that range is buying the lot, not the structure on the lot. My guess is they will bulldoze your nothing-fancy-but-still-a-nice-little-place and build their own McMansion (as people like to call them).

Kinda puts a whole new perspective on the idea of doing things like adding a deck or a pool or finishing a garage because you think it will increase the resale value, huh?

believe or not there has already been one tear down in Rosemary Beach. About two years ago someone bought a house one off the beach for a little over $2 mil. and tore it down. The house was a beautiful 3 year old 3000 s.f. home. The one that took its place is even nicer.

It is usually easier and cheaper to buy a vacant lot and build, rather than tearing down a house and hauling it away. There are places in Destin where there are not many lots available, so if someone wants to build there, they have to buy a house and level it before building. I have seen it done. Actually, I know a guy who bought a house on the Harbour in Oct '04 for $895K with leveling it in mind. He tore it down and cleared the lot in order to build a new home. In December '04, before construction began, someone offered him over $1.2M for the lot. He refused and built his own house.

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

It is usually easier and cheaper to buy a vacant lot and build, rather than tearing down a house and hauling it away.

You are correct. I am a proponent of re-development over new development especially when it comes to commercial development. For instance, in my community here in Atlanta, a K-mart store closed about two years ago and when this happened all of the tenants of the same shopping complex jumped ship and went elsewhere. Across the street from this abandoned center--which by now is an area riddled with all classifications of crime, was a large expansive acreage of beautiful old growth hardwood trees. Well the gorcer Kroger comes into the picture, and a developer levels this beautiful piece of property with the large expanse of trees and the nice stream, instead of the eyesore across the street. Why? Because it was cheaper and easier. There are so many redtape obstacles that must be overcome when one approaches re-development projects, especially when they are for commercial use. I ask myself, what are we doing? I am not a staunch environmentalist, I just think that there is a much better way of doing things, if not for the love of the environment, at least for an appreciation of the aesthetic beauty of our natural areas.

This happened on Hwy. 331 in DeFuniak on what was once a beautiful, pine tree-lined drive out of town Two huge "big box" strip commercial centers went in when only one was needed. Now the one that attracted a Publix is filled, to the neglect of what was once a bustling little Main Street downtown, and the big box across the highway sits empty and dilapidated. Yet they keep approving new commercial development on that highway instead of encouraging in-fill in those underused areas. The problem comes in with zoning. If the land has already been zoned commercial, the City's hands are pretty much tied in terms of saying "no" to development proposals that are consistent with the zoning. The solution is to avoid rezoning properties until there is a specific development proposal that is consistent with the City's vision for that area. This is usually predicated by the General Plan Land Use Element. Unfortunately, Walton County was a late bloomer in the area of planning and only started with same with the advent of Seaside. That's also how we got all those ugly highrise buildings in Blue Mountain and Seagrove...spot zoning when the world seemed a more benign place.

Smart & Donna, you both bring up some good points. The (human) falling of trees truly makes me boil. I'm sure it's all about the dollar, but can't something be done to save trees instead of clearing the entire parcel of land? Also...I've always wondered how and when the high rises were built on 30-A...what's the story?

Often times, a county will enact an ordinance which states that for every tree knocked down, one to three new trees must be planted in its place on the site of the new development. This may deter the developer from knocking down as many trees for the devopment. There is a county ordinance where I live in Atlanta which states that three trees for every one knocked down must be planted. But I wonder who is keeping tabs? Also, a parking lot filled with scrawny Bradford Pear trees does not come close to a grove of old growth oak trees. Besides, it only takes a strong summer thunderstorm to break a couple of these newly planted trees, and from then on out the entire planting is neglected and the people who are suppose to be enforcing the ordinance just let it slide.

It's clear to me that the vast majority of developers can and will do whatever is easiest for them to make a buck (ask me how I know :roll. There are a few good ones who do things carefully and with good will toward the neighborhood ... but most won't do this on their own. That's why we need a strong county government. Seems to me that they are getting a lot more tax dollars right now than ever ... maybe it's time to get them to tighten their restrictions -- NO wetlands building!! NO increased density!! etc. etc.

Cindy Meadows, are you listening?

-- NO wetlands building!! NO increased density!! etc. etc.

Didn't Florida use to have a law regarding the mitigation of wetlands? Anyone know if that is still the case? (Of course it still isn't the same as not destroying a wetland, but it was something.) :?:

Didn't Florida use to have a law regarding the mitigation of wetlands? Anyone know if that is still the case? (Of course it still isn't the same as not destroying a wetland, but it was something.) :?:

Depending on zoning for a specific property, wetlands mitigation is 20 or 40 acres of NEW wetlands created for every one acre of existing wetlands you use. Obviously, it is very expensive to mitigate especially as property costs sky rocket. A variance can be obtained through the DEP permitting process when you can't access your property except through a wetland. In this case, mitigation is not required, although there are strict permitting guidelines.

The DEP is very strict and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Depending on zoning for a specific property, wetlands mitigation is 20 or 40 acres of NEW wetlands created for every one acre of existing wetlands you use. Obviously, it is very expensive to mitigate especially as property costs sky rocket. A variance can be obtained through the DEP permitting process when you can't access your property except through a wetland. In this case, mitigation is not required, although there are strict permitting guidelines.

The DEP is very strict and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

I spoke to an environmental engineer/wetlands specialist this morning about a parcel in Seagrove that the owner is trying to re-subdivide. Basically he has three lots that run east-west that he wants to have redrawn so they are three lots running north-south, with an easement behind for driveway access.

I was all up in arms about the notice until I talked to the environmental company working on the redrawing. Basically the owner is doing this because one of his three lots is partly in wetlands, and instead of trying to go through the DEP to get permitting he just wants to build the same number of houses but in a different layout so he can leave the wetlands alone.

It' would not be increasing density so I guess I can't complain. There are pockets of wetlands in all sorts of places, and I think the bottom line is they should be protected.

Depending on zoning for a specific property, wetlands mitigation is 20 or 40 acres of NEW wetlands created for every one acre of existing wetlands you use. Obviously, it is very expensive to mitigate especially as property costs sky rocket. A variance can be obtained through the DEP permitting process when you can't access your property except through a wetland. In this case, mitigation is not required, although there are strict permitting guidelines.

The DEP is very strict and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

My understanding from talking with environmental engineers, is that the ratio of land impacted to the land used for mitigation is on a sliding scale with numerous variables. The ratio can be as high as 60:1.

My understanding from talking with environmental engineers, is that the ratio of land impacted to the land used for mitigation is on a sliding scale with numerous variables. The ratio can be as high as 60:1.

I'm sure you are correct. It all depends on the zoning and land use requirements. Also, wetlands are regulated by the state, not by the county. The point is that it takes a lot of land to mitigate.

I heard that it was a sliding scale also on wetlands and I also heard that something relatively new requires the mitigated land to be in the same "zone?" as the replacement land. I recall a comment that this is a disincentive to mitigate because the replacement land can no longer be replaced with land way up north that's 1,000/acre. Can anybody expand on this?

Regarding redevelopment. Saw yestday that 2 units at Park Place went pending for over $2 mil each. Isn't that the old condo (forget name) that had structural problems? Could swear I sent that to a developer before it was bought.

I heard that it was a sliding scale also on wetlands and I also heard that something relatively new requires the mitigated land to be in the same "zone?" as the replacement land. I recall a comment that this is a disincentive to mitigate because the replacement land can no longer be replaced with land way up north that's 1,000/acre. Can anybody expand on this?

Regarding redevelopment. Saw yestday that 2 units at Park Place went pending for over $2 mil each. Isn't that the old condo (forget name) that had structural problems? Could swear I sent that to a developer before it was bought.

Yes, same condo. I know the developers who bought it and are renovating it. Same developers as the Village of South Walton.

I heard that it was a sliding scale also on wetlands and I also heard that something relatively new requires the mitigated land to be in the same "zone?" as the replacement land. I recall a comment that this is a disincentive to mitigate because the replacement land can no longer be replaced with land way up north that's 1,000/acre. Can anybody expand on this?

I cannot expand too much on this because it is out of my field of study. I believe you are correct that land in SoWal has to be mitigated with land in SoWal. I am unfamiliar of the "zones" to which you refer. Something else they take into consideration is the type of land being mitigated. I think they take many things into account when analyzing the land needing mitigation, including standing water, hydric soils, and plant and animal species that inhabit the land. I believe similar analysis is involved in the land being used as the mitigation land. All of this goes into some sophisticated formula to determine the ratios required.

I have tried to get an environmental scientist/engineer friend of mine to get on this board, but I still don't see him.

Yes, same condo. I know the developers who bought it and are renovating it. Same developers as the Village of South Walton.

Wow, didn't know those guys were doing it. They're jamming. Last phase of the village is going up fast.

Federal Wetlands Policy

Florida Wetlands Policy

The mitigation rule does not establish minimum ratios for mitigation proposals, but does establish that, for preliminary planning purposes only, ratios typically are 2 acres created : I acre affected. The ultimate ratios that are accepted are adjusted up or down, based on:

• Time to restore wetland functions
• Special classifications of waterbody (OFWS)
• Type of wetland to be created
• Condition and value of functions being performed by the impacted area compared to the character and quality of wetlands to be created
• Uniqueness of the impacted wetlands
• Presence of exotic or nuisance species in the impacted wetlands
• Whether the project eliminates wetlands or changes wetlands from one type to another

Based on past permitting histories, the following ranges of ratios are assigned to mitigation proposals:

• Restoration and creation ratios:
  • Mangrove swamps, cypress swamps, and hardwood swamps: 2:1 to 5:1
  • Saltwater and freshwater marshes: 1.5:1 to 4:1
  • Enhancement ratios: 4:1 to 20:1, based on criteria in Section 62-312.340(3), F.A.C., including the degree, type, and cause of stress, whether the enhancement method is low maintenance or self regulating. and the likelihood of success in offsetting adverse impacts.
• Preservation ratios: 10: 1 to 60: 1

The lowest end of the ratio range is most appropriate when a high degree of reasonable assurance exists hat the mitigation will be successful and capable of offsetting the otherwise unpermittable aspects of the project, which can best be achieved through preconstruction mitigation efforts.

Kurt is on top of it. There you go. Totally confused, yet?

It's clear to me that the vast majority of developers can and will do whatever is easiest for them to make a buck (ask me how I know :roll. There are a few good ones who do things carefully and with good will toward the neighborhood ... but most won't do this on their own. That's why we need a strong county government. Seems to me that they are getting a lot more tax dollars right now than ever ... maybe it's time to get them to tighten their restrictions -- NO wetlands building!! NO increased density!! etc. etc.

Cindy Meadows, are you listening?

Cindy Meadows is not who should be talking to.

If not Cindy Meadows, who then?

If not Cindy Meadows, who then?

Telling Cindy this would be like preaching to the Choir, and she does not make up the majority. Unfortunately, the other County Commissioners, except Brannon, probably don't know what email is all about, so you should write them some letters. You can email Scott Brannon, but since the developers were the ones who pushed him into Office, I think you could bet your life's savings that he would not be on board with you.

just my 2 cents.