10/22/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9.R.2. PTTRI,IC DISCITSSION ITEM - RON SPICER REQUEST TO DISCITSS PERMIT VIOLATION (RIVER ISLAND DOCK PERMIT) The Board reviewed Memoranda of September 24, September 27, and October 16, 2002: Gnginal Message -- From: Linda & Ron (SMTP:rspiceraspecey.net( Sent: Tuesday, September 24. 2002 4:18 AM To: Boling, Stan Cc: Ehnng, Ed & Karen: Fowler. Sob & Linda: Goodwin. Walt & Jane: Kerezman Con: Moore. Ted & Jo Ann: Adams. Fran; Poole, Brian Subject: River Island Docks I don't have time tonight to give all the reasons and justifications for our complaint, so this is a quick summary. I'm rushing, so please excuse the typo's. It would appear to be in the developers best interest to comply with the present permit. Not doing so would mean a survey to prove the waters edge, which has a likelihood of being less than 50' in some places. The 8' protrusion estimate is not good when standoffs such as bumpers must be Included and most 18' plus boats have an 8' beam. In any case, as part of this and any revised permit, the developer must be required to disclose and include deed restnctions on the permittable protrusion. WATERS EDGE; When I informed the county that the docks were not placed at the waters edge per the permit, I was told, in effect that the waters edge was not a valid reference since it changes However Mr larges personal, unsurveyed, measurement of the waters edge was accepted as correct. This is the same developer that blatantly misrepresented the waters edge in his 2nd plot pian submission until it was surveyed and shown to be different. My measurement of the canal width opposite the 6th dock is only 4W, from waters edge to a seawall on the west side. However there are mangroves along side of the seawall making the width only 34'. In addition that dock, as shown on the plan, is angled away from the waters edge at a spot where the canai is narrowest. PERMIT VIOLATION; The countys e-mail that said there was no permit violation is in error. If the canal is wider than estimated at a particular spot, doesn't mean there wasn't a violation. If it's wider in the amount Mr. Large measured, then a recalculation of the 25% requirement would still place the dock location beyond the limit and still result in a violation. BOAT BEAM: The original permit was based upon an 8 beam boat. A boat will obviously be offset from the dock by about a foot for bumpers, dolphin poles, etc. Most 18' plus boats have at (east an 8' beam (per Key West and Key Largo brochures). Add the standoff, and 9' should have been the minimum. The restnction on the maximum distance that anything can protrude beyond the dock, should be made clear to, and acknowledged by all purchasers. The reason being; we have a person who has placed impediments into our road easement. The county refused to do anything about it, claiming it's private property. The result is going to be a law suit. These canals are private property and we'll have the same situation if somebody installs a boat Lift. However this time the county has been made aware of the potential problem and for them to not take action to preclude the problem may make them a party to a law suit. BOAT LIFT: Compounding the boat lift situation above, is the fact that county doesn't require a permit to install a lift. With the requirements that are placed on how much obstruction can be placed in a canal, it appears to be an oversight that needs immediate correction. 23 r n • H OCTOBER 22, 2002