6/11/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

QUA i11991 I BOOK 83 PA,E 54C Mr. Sabonjohn then referred to a letter from the DER which states that persons whose substantial interest are affected by this permit (for the proposed dredging) have a right to petition for an administrative hearing, and he felt that demonstrates his right to be here. He then referred to his letter which was published in the PRESS JOURNAL, as follows: Channel Work Not Done Right There has been a lot of talk about the canal dredging in Rock - ridge. The survey performed by Jim Davis, a county engineer, showed on completion there never was a channel 5 feet by 15 feet as contracted. There have been and still are large areas 18 inches to 20 inches in the contracted area. Mr. Davis says soundings were performed that determined there was a rock ledge and the dredging company did the best it could. I walked this area and was able to push a rod 3 feet to 4 feet into the sand; in other areas I sank in the muck well past my knees. Mr. Da- vis insists the channel silted in less than six months. Yet a chan- nel that runs parallel to the sup- posed channel is still 8 feet to 10 feet deep after 40 years. When - asked about trimming dead branches that break and block the canal, Mr. Davis replies, "This is an environmentally sen- sitive area." In the next breath, he informs me that the sewer plant dumps sludge in the river less than 100 yards from this spot. While out in n)y boat with Mr. Davis and a Press -Journal re- porter, we were stuck in the muck. Mr. Davis insists the work is done properly. . When he is told that people liv- ing on the canal will testify that the work was never done prop- erly, he says they are wrong, his men did the proper job, and "we got our money's worth." Speaking for myself, as a tax- payer of Indian River County, I. don't want my money's worth. I want what I contracted and paid for. That is to aredge the desig- nated area to the depth and width contracted for, 5 feet by 15 feet at low tide. J. Richard Sabonjohn Vero Beach Attorney Vitunac inquired whether Mr. Sabonjohn ever had petitioned for an administrative hearing, and upon learning that he had not, pointed out that the time to do so had expired 2 years ago. Director Davis agreed that the hearing referred to was to object to issuance of the DER permit. Mr. Sabonjohn continued to read statements from the contract, noting that it says the primary use in the canal will be provided to residents who have waterfront lots; that it will allow passage through the canal to dock their boats; and that the canal will once again provide access to the IntraCoastal Waterway. It also says that the proposed access channel will link up to. the entrance lagoon to the north, and Mr. Sabonjohn claimed that it does not do that at this time. He then quoted the statement in the DER permit which says: "Site 2 will consist of an area 405 by 50 feet by -5 feet......." He next referred the Board to the following drawing which is part of the DER permit and shows a 5' depth 30' wide: 14