My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/22/2002
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2002
>
10/22/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2019 2:35:03 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 4:48:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Migration
Meeting Date
10/22/2002
Archived Roll/Disk#
2562
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
F' <br />c <br />To: <br />Cc: <br />Subfect: <br />a <br />IGNORING THE PERMIT; <br />I sent the county an e-mail last week saying that the dock builder should <br />be told he has to install per the permit requirements. As I stated in that <br />e-mail, placing the docks not IAW with the permit would be on purpose. <br />Today the dock builder was purposely installing piles beyond the permit <br />limits and stated that Mr Large told him to do so. <br />Roland Deblois <br />Friday, September 27, 2002 2035 PM <br />Ron Spicer <br />Brian Poole; Stan Boling; Bob Keating; Ruth Stanbridge <br />River Island Docks, response to your 9/24/02 emaiis to Stan Boling <br />Mr. Spicer - this is in response to your 9/24/02 emails to Stan Boling about the River Island docks. On 9/25/02, Bnan <br />Poole and I met on-site with Jack Large and Clay Coble of Dockside Builders. At that time, we reviewed the permit <br />drawings and took field measurements. Please note the following comments concerning issues raised in your 9/24/02 <br />emails. <br />Water's edge: the docks are being built consistent with the waters edge as shown on the approved dock plan. The <br />current water line is different from what the water line was when the dock plan was drawn. As Brian indicated, since the <br />water line varies, it is not an appropriate reference point to determine dock location compliance. Field measurements <br />from non -variable reference points (i.e., the road right-of-way) indicate that the docks are being constructed as permitted. <br />Permit violation: field measurements taken at the 9/25/02 on-site meeting indicate that the 25% requirement is being <br />met, even at the narrowest points. The mangroves you reference near the bulkhead are not a factor in the 25% <br />requirement, since users of the canal have a right to trim or remove the mangroves (under a permit exemption for canal <br />navigation purposes) if the mangroves impede boat access. <br />`.s an aside, the lot with the bulkhead and mangroves is on the corner of two canals, and any proposed clock associated <br />rith that lot wouid be directed by county staff to the wider east -west canal and not opposite the River Island docks. So, <br />as a practical matter, there will be no dock projecting 25% into the canal from the opposite shore. In fact, each lot on the <br />canal shore opposite the River Island docks is on the comer of two canals (with wider east -west canals), and any future <br />docks on those Tots would be directed to the ease -west canals. In effect, there will be no docks on the opposite shore, <br />Ir—sing that much more room for boat navigation.] <br />Boat beam: the docks are being built in compliance with County regulations. The docks, as designed, allow a reasonable <br />boat width for boats to be moored at the docks. if county code enforcement staff gain evidence in the future of someone <br />moonng a wide boat that disrupts canal access and violates the 25% rule, then that individual will be cited for a code <br />violation. Until and unless that happens, there is no violation to cite. <br />Boat lift: although the County does not require a building permit for boat lifts, per se. the County does require a permit <br />for electrical service to boat lifts. County staff will "red flagged" the address files in the County's computer permitting <br />program so that electrical permits for boat lifts will trigger a review for boat lift compliance with canal projection <br />requirements. <br />Ignoring the permit: the permit is not being ignored, for the stated reasons. <br />Silt screen: at the 9/25/02 field meeting, Mr. Large was directed to restore the sift screen that was breached at various <br />points along the canal edge. County staff are monitoring the problem and will issue a citation if it is not corrected. <br />In summary, staff has investigated the matter and has concluded that, other than the silt screen issue, there are no <br />permit violations associated with the River Island docks under construction. <br />Roland M. DeBlois, AICP <br />Chief, Environmental Planning <br />& Code Enforcement Section <br />Indian River County <br />1840 25th Street <br />Vero Beach,FL 32960-3365 <br />Pkone: (772) 567-8000, ext. 1258 <br />: (772) 978-1806 <br />email: rdeblois@ircaov.com <br />OCTOBER 22, 2002 <br />3 <br />24 <br />i <br />t <br />TPA <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.