Departments



Articles

Less

News: Arson Suspected in Dock Fire
September 27th, 2006

News: Bulkhead Requests Torpedoed
September 27th, 2006

News: $300,000 USDA Check for City
September 26th, 2006

News: L.P.A. Starts E.A.R.
September 22nd, 2006

News: Police Criticized before Commission
September 13th, 2006

News: Levy County Budget Now at $77,891,819
September 12th, 2006

News: 9/11 Memorial Service
September 11th, 2006

News: Firefighters Remember 9-11
September 10th, 2006

News: Cedar Key Tax Rate and Budget Set
September 8th, 2006

News: Tax Policies in Question
September 5th, 2006

News: Young Adult Books Are Available In Local Library
August 23rd, 2006

News: Smitty`s Bar-B-Que Opens
August 22nd, 2006

News: Brother Mike Serves First Baptist Church
August 19th, 2006

News: Fishing Bridge Declared Structurally Deficient
August 18th, 2006

News: City Commission OK`s Citizens` Petitions & Emergency Management Plan
August 17th, 2006

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