10/22/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F' c To: Cc: Subfect: a IGNORING THE PERMIT; I sent the county an e-mail last week saying that the dock builder should be told he has to install per the permit requirements. As I stated in that e-mail, placing the docks not IAW with the permit would be on purpose. Today the dock builder was purposely installing piles beyond the permit limits and stated that Mr Large told him to do so. Roland Deblois Friday, September 27, 2002 2035 PM Ron Spicer Brian Poole; Stan Boling; Bob Keating; Ruth Stanbridge River Island Docks, response to your 9/24/02 emaiis to Stan Boling 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 Poole and I met on-site with Jack Large and Clay Coble of Dockside Builders. At that time, we reviewed the permit drawings and took field measurements. Please note the following comments concerning issues raised in your 9/24/02 emails. Water's edge: the docks are being built consistent with the waters edge as shown on the approved dock plan. The current water line is different from what the water line was when the dock plan was drawn. As Brian indicated, since the water line varies, it is not an appropriate reference point to determine dock location compliance. Field measurements from non -variable reference points (i.e., the road right-of-way) indicate that the docks are being constructed as permitted. Permit violation: field measurements taken at the 9/25/02 on-site meeting indicate that the 25% requirement is being met, even at the narrowest points. The mangroves you reference near the bulkhead are not a factor in the 25% requirement, since users of the canal have a right to trim or remove the mangroves (under a permit exemption for canal navigation purposes) if the mangroves impede boat access. `.s an aside, the lot with the bulkhead and mangroves is on the corner of two canals, and any proposed clock associated rith that lot wouid be directed by county staff to the wider east -west canal and not opposite the River Island docks. So, as a practical matter, there will be no dock projecting 25% into the canal from the opposite shore. In fact, each lot on the canal shore opposite the River Island docks is on the comer of two canals (with wider east -west canals), and any future docks on those Tots would be directed to the ease -west canals. In effect, there will be no docks on the opposite shore, Ir—sing that much more room for boat navigation.] Boat beam: the docks are being built in compliance with County regulations. The docks, as designed, allow a reasonable boat width for boats to be moored at the docks. if county code enforcement staff gain evidence in the future of someone moonng a wide boat that disrupts canal access and violates the 25% rule, then that individual will be cited for a code violation. Until and unless that happens, there is no violation to cite. Boat lift: although the County does not require a building permit for boat lifts, per se. the County does require a permit for electrical service to boat lifts. County staff will "red flagged" the address files in the County's computer permitting program so that electrical permits for boat lifts will trigger a review for boat lift compliance with canal projection requirements. Ignoring the permit: the permit is not being ignored, for the stated reasons. Silt screen: at the 9/25/02 field meeting, Mr. Large was directed to restore the sift screen that was breached at various points along the canal edge. County staff are monitoring the problem and will issue a citation if it is not corrected. In summary, staff has investigated the matter and has concluded that, other than the silt screen issue, there are no permit violations associated with the River Island docks under construction. Roland M. DeBlois, AICP Chief, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Section Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach,FL 32960-3365 Pkone: (772) 567-8000, ext. 1258 : (772) 978-1806 email: rdeblois@ircaov.com OCTOBER 22, 2002 3 24 i t TPA