Departments



Articles

Less

News: Commission Served In Law Suit
August 7th, 2009

News: Cell Tower Project Progresses
August 7th, 2009

News: Commissioner Hodges Frustrated by Fishing Pier
August 7th, 2009

News: Lia King Leaves Water Board
August 6th, 2009

News: Solar Power for the Community Center
August 3rd, 2009

News: Blitch Leapfrogged by "Cracker" Johnson
July 29th, 2009

News: Beckham Tasering Suit Filed
July 27th, 2009

News: Dangerous Dog Debate Delayed
July 22nd, 2009

News: Community Center Solar Economical
July 19th, 2009

News: City Budget Under the Knife
July 17th, 2009

News: Property Appraiser to Conduct Blanket Assessment
July 13th, 2009

News: Buzz Holling Honored in Canada
July 12th, 2009

News: Good News at Commission Meeting (and Bad)
July 12th, 2009

News: Chamber of Commerce-City Visitor`s Center Project
June 17th, 2009

News: Community Center Goes Solar
June 17th, 2009

More

Disputed Seawall Still Reverberates

Disputed Seawall Still Reverberates

Jim Hoy

A new seawall that connects seawalls on adjacent G Street properties continues to draw criticism. The seawall owner, Brett Vincent of Tyrone, GA, contends that an August 23 Cedar Key News article is misleading. During multiple telephone calls on August 29, Mr. Vincent voiced three complaints, first that the current building official supported his plan, second that the article erred in saying a former building official was present at a September meeting, and third that Commissioner Sue Colson's suggested alternatives to his plan were not practical. Mr. Vincent added that he is in the construction business and had never heard of the requirement of a Final Order from the Commission to build a seawall.

Newly discovered e-mails and letters dated from April 2006 to September 6, 2007 pertaining to the seawall project may tell who overrode the Final Order approved by the City Commission June 6, 2006 and reaffirmed June 20, 2006.


Water level view of the Vincent seawall showing deviation from a straigtht line.

The following dates and events appear to define the controversy.
1. April 26, 2006: Then Building Official R. Niffenegger issued a building permit.
2. June 9, 2006: City Attorney David Coffey wrote to Me. Vincent, saying the permit was invalid and that work on the project should stop.
3. June 20,2006: Mayor Paul Oliver signed a Final Order approving a straight line seawall.
4. September 22, 2006: Building Official Walter Brown in a note to file recommended a compromise from the straight line.
5. September 26, 2006: The City Commission rejected the compromise.
6. December, 2006: Vincent's request for a hearing was tabled.
7. January 9, 2007: The tabled hearing was withdrawn at Vincent's attorney's request.
8. March 6, 2007: The City Attorney received two letters from Vincent's attorney, one asking for a compromise and a second that gave notice of a law suit seeking $27140.64 in damages.
9. July 12, 2007: A series of e-mails between the City Attorney and Building Department officials.
10. August 15, 2007: E-mail exchanges between the City Attorney and Walter Brown, Building Official.
11. September 6, 2007: Release of Vincent Project e-mails and letters.

The key communications that may indicate responsibility for the outcome of the Vincent project are as follows:

The City Attorney wrote to Mr. Vincent on June 9, 2006, "I am writing you to advise that the permit was issued in error without legal authority and is invalid. It is further quite evident from a review of the complete file that the permit purports to authorize a bulkhead configuration that is inconsistent with the unambiguous direction given by the City Commission when making its determination following the quasi-judicial hearing."

The City Attorney e-mailed the Building Department July 12, 2007, saying that the bulkhead must be the minimum size possible to protect the threatened structure.

Building Official Walter Brown e-mailed the City Attorney August 15, 2007 saying he told two people that he approved the seawall design, "based on a compromise between what was permitted by Mr. Bob (Niffenegger) and what should have been allowed."

The City Attorney replied , "Vincent tried to get a second final order that would have allowed what Mr. Bob permitted but the Commission was going to deny that request and it was never acted upon-- at Vincent's request."

The seawall must be viewed from two positions to see the final configuration. The approved straight line runs from a point near the neighboring seawall on the south to a point where the City's pocket park seawall begins on the north. (See accompanying photographs.)


The approved straight line would run from the far end of the seawall to a point where the grass ends in the forground of the photo.

Some of the reaction to the seawall project has come from the damage to the pocket park when it was used as access to the Vincent property. Mr. Vincent told Cedar Key News that he had seeded the damaged area on August 26, but did not have appropriate sod to fix the damage.


Formerly grassy area in the City pocket park. Note the park benches in the background.

Editor`s Note: Mr. Vincent is correct in saying that Cedar Key News erred when we said a former building official was at the September Commission meeting. We regret the error and any distress to Mr. Vincent.

Click for printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

 

 

© 2013
Cedar Key News

cedarkeynews@gmail.com