HomeMy WebLinkAboutOak Lane (10)Hi Bernie. I didn’t see a specific question in your email of March 10th,
but let me reiterate several points I have previously made.
* When the City issued a building permit on October 6, 2015 for
the construction of a house at 127 Oak Lane, it relied upon a survey
from Walker Surveying, a licensed surveyor in the state of Florida,
which indicated compliance with City Code requirements, including
property lines, setbacks, the location of improvements, etc. Subsequent
to this, there were suggestions by adjacent property owners that the
submitted survey was incorrect. The City requested documentation in
support of this claim. A second survey was submitted to the City by the
resident of 123 Oak Lane on or around January 15, 2016. This survey was
conducted by Riehl Reliable Surveying and Mapping and it did show a
conflict with the Walker survey. The City asked that the two surveyors
get together and determine the nature and scope of the conflict. To
date, we have not seen anything in response to this request. In my email
to you on February 23rd, I explained the situation and assured you that
a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until this issue was
resolved.
* I am not aware of any “backroom deals” with Sheropa, LLC or any
other party regarding this matter. The City’s records related to this
item are available for anyone to review, make copies, etc.
* To bring this issue to closure, the City is proposing to have a
third-party surveyor review the two surveys and determine what, if any,
conflicts exist. I have asked the City Attorney’s Office to prepare an
agreement that each of the affected parties will sign that stipulates
their financial participation as well as its commitment to abide by the
results of the review. The parties to the agreement will be the City,
the builder (Turnkey Construction) and the parties that own/reside 123 &
127 Oak Lane.
* In your March 4th email, you ask whether you will be informed of
the outcome of this survey dispute and have a chance to have input or
appeal. The affected parties will be notified of the results of the
review.
* I want to clarify a statement I made in my email of March 2,
2016 to you where I indicated the City was not involved with any debris
removal impacting your property. That is incorrect. I have been
informed that a debris pile was placed there as a result of a contractor
performing maintenance on a City drainage canal. Once City staff was
made aware of the oversight, the pile was immediately removed. Regarding
your assertion that the City has allowed the developer to go unchecked,
the record does not support that. When a complaint has been lodged,
Code Enforcement Staff has investigated and taken appropriate action.
For example when it was reported that a dumpster was improperly located
on your property, Staff contacted the developer and had it removed.
When you informed Code Enforcement Staff about a portable toilet
improperly placed on your property, it was removed.
To assist me in moving this issue forward, I need to fully understand
how the disputed survey impacts your property. Thank you.
Dave
<mailto:http://www.cityofcapecanaveral.org/>
Launch your connection…
<mailto:https://www.facebook.com/CityofCapeCanaveral>
<mailto:https://www.instagram.com/cityofcapecanaveral/>
<mailto:https://www.linkedin.com/company/city-of-cape-canaveral-the>
<mailto:https://twitter.com/CapeCanaveralFL>
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing