Protect30A · Community advocacy · Sandestin
Clear records. Independent review. Enforceable protections.
Write your commissioners ↓ · Review the evidence ↓Preliminary evidence review • Updated October 14, 2026, 8:08 p.m. CDT • Prepared by ChatGPT for Doug Liles from the cited records.
The narrative describes 22 Phase I homes and 24 future villas; the engineering master-plan table lists 22 future multifamily units. Neither establishes a final approval. See the accuracy notes below.
Read the applicant narrative · packet page 15Reconcile development rights and open space, verify drainage and receiving-water effects, and make any safeguards enforceable.
See the document comparisons ↓The county's project-location map outlines the proposed area in red. Existing homes, golf facilities and lakes surround it; Troon Drive provides the location reference near the southern entrance.
Open county aerial in the PDFSee proposed lots and phases · page 26See grading and drainage plan · page 30
Drainage connection still to verify: this aerial shows proximity, not flow direction. We have not drawn a discharge route to the bay or a flood-impact area. Those require the approved plans, outfall mapping and technical review.
These are documented differences to resolve. A later letter may revise an earlier proposal; the public record should identify the controlling version and reconcile its calculations.
Parcel 209 → 22 units
Describes a transfer from Parcel 209 to Parcel 428, leaving 2 units on Parcel 209.
Read packet page 15224A → 16; 320.1 → 6
Proposes 16 units from Osprey Point and 6 from Grand, Lasata, Bahia and Elation, totaling 22.
Read packet pages 77–78Why it matters: the sources and remaining balances must support the requested allocation. The different accounts do not by themselves establish duplicate use of units.
One dated, reconciled transfer statement; the controlling DRI Exhibit E and approval; pre- and post-transfer balances; and a clear statement identifying which earlier account is superseded. County density comment begins on packet page 5 and continues on page 6.
6.3 acres
Counts the proposed right-of-way, driveways and buildable lot footprint as the open-space reduction.
Read packet page 159.52 acres, maximum
Counts streets and lots, while suggesting setbacks may reduce the final open-space loss.
Read packet page 77Why it matters: these figures use different counting assumptions. The community needs to know what qualifies as protected open space and whether the DRI-wide requirement remains satisfied.
A mapped open-space schedule showing existing acreage, conversion acreage, qualifying retained areas and the resulting DRI-wide total, with the controlling definition and approval cited. County open-space reconciliation comment · packet page 6.
Mixed Use / Coastal Center
The narrative identifies these as the future land use and zoning.
Read packet page 15Rural Residential / Rural Village
The table lists different land-use and zoning labels.
Read packet page 5Why it matters: reviewers should identify the governing designations and any applicable DRI standards. This may be a clerical error; the difference alone does not establish that a rezoning is needed.
A corrected staff table and confirmation against the adopted maps and controlling DRI approvals, identifying any effect on the compliance analysis.
Ask for a reconciled record and verified drainage analysis. Use the editable commissioner letter, share this page, or send dated local flooding evidence for review.
Personalize your letterShare with neighborsSend flooding evidence
Next Raven hearing: not confirmed in this review. Check the official agenda and submission instructions before relying on a meeting date or comment deadline. Official county agendas.
The March 20 narrative describes replacing the driving range and practice facilities with 22 detached homes and an interior road, with 24 villas contemplated later. The engineering master-plan table instead lists 22 future multifamily units. The final later-phase count and approval scope need clarification. This proposal does not establish permanent closure of the entire golf course.
Read the applicant narrativeThe county staff report identifies conflicting figures and unresolved review items. These warrant written answers; discrepancies alone do not prove wrongdoing.
Read the county staff reportStart with the short explanation. Expand each item for the source, the comparison to make, and what remains unresolved.
Open the complete county packet · PDF, 84 pages, about 72 MB
Page references below use the complete packet's PDF page numbers. Page jumps depend on your PDF viewer. These are county-hosted source records; our summaries are preliminary analysis.The county staff report records a meeting with the applicant on this date. That is a precise starting point for tracing the original proposal.
Complete packet, page 5 · Staff report, page 4.
Still needed: the meeting request, separate tracking number, initial concept plans, staff notes or written comments, and follow-up correspondence. These are not listed among the packet's attachments; the underlying pre-application file has not been recovered in this review.
Compare the initial unit count, phases, drainage footprint and requested studies against the current application. Search by Parcel 428, all four county parcel IDs, ECAE and the owners, as well as Raven.
An April 21, 2026 ECAE letter proposes 16 units from Parcel 224A (Osprey Point) and 6 from Parcel 320.1 (Grand, Lasata, Bahia and Elation).
Density allocation and open-space letter, packet pages 77–78. Maps and entitlement excerpts follow in the packet.
The letter cites Exhibit E of the Sandestin 2024 Biennial Report as the approved pre-transfer allocation. The complete report, approval and subsequent allocation changes still need to be obtained and checked. Its stated post-transfer balances are 0 remaining units on 224A, 80 on 320.1 and 22 on 428.
The staff report flags a different donor, Parcel 209, in the March 20 narrative. Compare the signed letters, controlling Exhibit E, approvals and dated revisions to establish which allocation governs and whether the same units remain available.
Different kinds of credits: residential development rights are separate from wetland mitigation-bank credits. Each has its own ledger and approval trail.
The packet includes a boundary/topographic survey, engineering construction plans, environmental assessment, traffic drawdown statement and existing-conditions materials.
Packet attachment index, page 1 · Environmental assessment begins on packet page 53.
The staff report describes an assessment of approximately 12.5 acres with no jurisdictional wetlands identified. Match its surveyed boundary to the proposed construction, drainage works and future-phase footprint. A current no-wetlands finding does not establish whether older conservation restrictions or mitigation obligations apply.
For drainage, obtain the native model, calculations, design storm assumptions, groundwater and receiving-water levels, outfall details, and maintenance obligations. Compare approved existing conditions with proposed conditions and impacts on neighboring properties. The public packet is not a substitute for independent verification of the model.
Not yet verified: an environmental authorization covering this construction footprint. Searches by name, owner and section found other Sandestin or nearby records, but no approved boundary map has yet connected one to Raven. An unsuccessful search does not establish that authorization is absent.
County project: MAJ26-000007 · Sandestin DRI Parcel 428 · ECA project 25-051 · Troon Drive, Miramar Beach. Owners named in the county record: Sandestin Investments LLC, Sandestin Holdings LLC and Sandestin Owners Association Inc. Applicant: Dean A. F. Burgis, ECAE LLC.
26-2S-21-42000-001-000026-2S-21-42000-001-000126-2S-21-42000-001-00A026-2S-21-42000-001-00B0Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 21 West. DRI parcel numbers and county tax parcel IDs are different identifiers. A section-level match or matching owner alone does not demonstrate permit coverage.
Check for an existing master authorization, modifications, pending applications, exemptions and any qualifying DEP self-certification. Match approved permit boundaries, drainage basins and outfalls to the surveyed construction footprint.
NWFWMD public permitting search · DEP public records search · DEP guide to finding ERP records.
DEP's published ledgers are another route to an impact-permit number. Cross-search project and predecessor names, owners and permit numbers; then trace any debit to the impact permit and approved map. No transaction has been verified as covering Raven in this review.
DEP mitigation-bank ledgers · Army Corps RIBITS bank records.
Check the ledger date, bank service area, credit type, quantity, debit approval and any return or correction. DEP handles mitigation-bank permitting within NWFWMD boundaries. A bank credit addresses its specified mitigation obligation; flood protection and pollutant transport require separate evidence.
Trace the original Sandestin DRI development order and amendments, recorded conservation easements and plats, and any Army Corps permits identified by those records. Compare legal descriptions and approved maps with the Raven footprint; a Sandestin-wide name match is only a lead. No conservation restriction has yet been verified as covering this construction footprint.
Walton Clerk official records search · County meeting records and approvals.
The October 21 TRC meeting appears on the county calendar. Raven's inclusion and the applicable comment deadline remain unconfirmed; do not rely on that date as a confirmed Raven hearing.
Send public records or corrections · digitalcommons@icloud.com. Community submissions go to Protect30A for review and are not automatically filed with the county.
The Good Samaritan Institute’s SaveOurBay project describes one pooled sample of livers from 13 catfish collected at Ditch #10 in Santa Rosa Beach. The linked Pace report documents PFAS detections in the sample identified as catfish livers. This is an existing watershed concern—not a finding that Raven caused contamination. It does not measure edible fillets or establish a hydrologic connection to this project.
Our request: verify the drainage pathway, assess potential pollutant mobilization, and establish appropriate baseline testing before disturbance where supported by the evidence.
Sampling location and pooling details are attributed to the project’s account; they have not been independently reconstructed here. One pooled sample cannot establish how common contamination is across the bay or how much each fish contributed.
Read the full laboratory report · Read the sampling project’s accountApproval status: Hearing date and final decision status are not confirmed. An agenda request for approval is not an approval.
Check official county meetings and recordsPersonalize the letter, choose a recipient and review the draft in your email app before sending. Contacting commissioners does not automatically place comments into the project record or preserve any review rights. Ask county planning for the proper submission channel.
Open draft to all five commissioners
Document flooding with dates, locations, rainfall context and photographs when available. Send source documents or corrections to Protect30A for review. Submissions are not automatically published or submitted to the county.
Share evidence with Protect30AReview status · October 14, 2026, 8:08 p.m. CDT: this is a public advocacy summary of a preliminary documentary review. It is not a peer-reviewed study, independent engineering certification or finding that the project causes flooding or pollution. “Protect the Bay. Prevent More Flooding.” states the campaign’s goal, not an established project impact.
The staff report recommends approval with conditions. Its floodplain reviewer reports no outstanding floodplain issues and describes approximately 6,194 cubic feet of fill with 138,724 cubic feet of additional storage. The environmental summary reports no jurisdictional wetlands and no observed evidence of hazardous materials or contamination. These findings belong in a balanced account.
Other engineering and planning items remain unresolved in that same report. A visual observation of no contamination is not chemical testing; a floodplain review is not independent verification of all drainage impacts. Floodplain comments · packet pages 6–7 · Environmental comments · page 8 · Recommendation · page 10.
These observations were checked visually on the source pages. Different dates, scopes or plan revisions may explain some differences; an agency or applicant response has not been verified in this review.
We compared the narrative, staff report, allocation letter and selected engineering and environmental pages within the county-published 84-page packet. Text extraction was checked against rendered pages for the newly reported date, location and plan-table differences. Links identify complete-packet PDF pages. The source remains authoritative; the summaries and suggested actions are AI-assisted interpretation.
Permit searches were exploratory, not an exhaustive historical title or permit search. No native drainage model was rerun, no field survey or sampling was performed for this review, and no developer or agency response to these specific audit questions has been verified. Our absence of a record is not proof the record does not exist. Favorable findings and unresolved questions are reported together.
Download the source register and packet SHA-256 fingerprint. The fingerprint identifies the retrieved packet version; it does not authenticate the accuracy of its contents. A later corrected packet may have a different fingerprint.
Corrections and source-backed responses are welcome at digitalcommons@icloud.com.
Read the detailed preliminary review. Full engineering-model verification remains outstanding.
Applicant narrative, March 20; county staff report and TRC agenda, October 7; Pace laboratory report, May 21, 2024; official commissioner directory, checked October 14, 2026.
October 7 agendaOctober 14, 2026, 8:08 p.m. CDT: Audited source pages and corrected stale statements in the detailed review. Added favorable findings, later-phase count and chronology differences, legal-location and permit-route questions, sampling-provenance limits and a reproducible source register. The map, comparisons, timeline and source layers remain available. Records correspondence now uses digitalcommons@icloud.com. Engineering-model verification, permit-boundary matching and the next project hearing remain unresolved. Updated manually.