HomeMy WebLinkAboutFW Archaeological Survey Re Jim Swann Re City Celebration includes Tribal Dancers your input requested (2)Ladies,
FYI.....David
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Droid
-----Original message-----
From: Bob Baugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com>
To: Todd Morley <T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, David Dickey
<D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
Cc: Rocky Randels <R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, Buzz Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, John Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, Bob Hoog
<B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, Betty Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, David Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, 'Bill Moberg'
<billmoberg@aol.com>, "gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com" <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 18, 2014 17:01:22 GMT+00:00
Subject: FW: Archaeological Survey, Re: Jim Swann? Re: City Celebration
includes Tribal Dancers, your input requested.
Todd/David: Per our discussion yesterday, attached are the records
showing that the land in question has been investigated by a state
certified engineer firm that does “Archaeological Surveys”. That the
site in question (Old Porter land now known as Cumberland Farm)
submitted a report to the state agency and they issue the letter
attached that says this site has no archaeological value to the State of
Florida and the state concurs that the study was done outline by statues
of the State of Florida.
These letters came from the City of Cape Canaveral when I filed an
information request before we purchase this land. If all parties
remember these lands had an extensive files on record at the city
because Porter had submitted for site plan approval for two hotels and
condo development. It also had extensive file because it had a long
history of code violations. This will be the second or third time
that Ray Osborne has misrepresented the facts to anybody that will
listen to him.
Also remember this is not a case of development of raw or unused land.
This land has been develop longer than most of the barrier island, the
first building was a house in the 1940’s, it now has a triplex, a
duplex, two houses on it, a golf course (fix up and sold), and a
restaurant (now Dollar General) . We have tenants in three of the
remaining units. The point is this, this is a redevelopment.
We have gone out of our way to try to make this development work for
Cape Canaveral and our neighbors. We have save as many trees as
possible and made sure they were on the north property line so they
acted as a buffer. We have retain all run off on site (the retention
site is actual all beach sand) and no run off to the lagoon, which
cannot be said for the developed land to the north of us which has no
retention and all run off is pipe to the lagoon. The lighting will have
directional lighting and no spill over light, especially with the trees
retain on the north side. The pumps will be the most environmentally
friendly ones in town because they will be installed at the latest state
standards. You will also notice that the retention is in the back of
this site which pushes all the commercial activity towards A1A. Because
of this and the fact that I choice to not sell them an additional 58’ of
land that is zone commercial and extends westward (deeper into/next to
Cape Shore actual residential units) that if this site is develop as a
permitted use (without special exception) and the retention is
underground this site would be much more intrusive with commercial
activity then now being proposed and it would penetrate deeper into the
residential neighbors to the north. This fact seems to be lost on all
my neighbors.
We have been respectful of Cape Shores concerns and tried to limited
traffic on Cape Shore Circle for this site and the future development of
the remaining land by retaining ingress/egress to A1A with a new road
between Cumberland Farm and Dollar General. We have retain a 50 strip
of land behind Dollar General, Golf and Gator, and 100’ on Holman so we
could have a second access point on Holman Road (controlled
intersection).
All of this was done with discussion with Cape Shores and the City and
trying to address their concerns. We believe we have a prescriptive
easement of Cape Shore Drive and told Cape Shores this. The road in
questions (Cape Shores Drive) shows up on Brevard County Survey Aerial
pictures in the late 40’s and early 50’s. All the houses (we now owned)
used this road for almost 30 years before Cape Shores was even built.
All mail delivery is by of Cape Shore Drive. We have tried very hard
to avoid this can of worms by redirecting our development traffic which
puts more cost on us (new roads instead of using Cape Shore Drive which
take up land, trees, cause for more retention, etc.).
This site was offer to the city when I first purchase it, no takers
because you all face the same economic reality as private business.
The notion now since I own the land that I should save all the trees and
not develop this land is unrealistic and absurd.
Gary Toenjes, Cape Shore Condo President is back in our area on the 20th
of this month. I have asked him for his time to see if we can resolve
any outstanding issues. I have forward him all the information on this
project and cc him on this email. Hopefully we can come to some type of
understanding. If nothing else I would like to meet with the Mayor and
all the Commissioners (individually) so they can at least hear both
sides of the story without the facts being misrepresented. I want to
help change Cape Canaveral into something more than what we have now, I
disagree with those who say change is bad. Most of the commercial
buildings on the A1A roadway need to be torn down, or redeveloped.
This includes most of our existing gas stations that are way past their
prime. The discussion of trying to switch the site to BP on the
triangle is mute because I asked Cumberland Farm if they would do that
and they said no. But I believe that site can be redevelop if the price
meets market and everybody is motivated to do so to other developers.
Sorry about the long winded email. Thank you for your time reading it.
Below is some earlier correspondence with Ray and Jim Swann (a friend)
which gives you some insight why he is not a fan of mine.
Bob Baugher
From: Bob Baugher [mailto:BBAugher@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:30 AM
To: 'Jim Swann'
Subject: FW: Archaeological Survey, Re: Jim Swann? Re: City Celebration
includes Tribal Dancers, your input requested.
Jim: Thanks for the support. My email below is what pissed him off.
But if you click on the attachments the previous property owners spent
real money investigating this and got a ruling that no further action is
required.
________________________________
From: Bob Baugher [mailto:BBAugher@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 9:06 AM
To: 'Ray Osborne'
Cc: 'billmoberg@aol.com'; 'Barry Brown'; 'Todd Morley'
Subject: RE: Archaeological Survey, Re: Jim Swann? Re: City Celebration
includes Tribal Dancers, your input requested.
Ray: At this time we will not participate in this nor do you have our
permission to submit anything to do with our land. I have reviewed the
documents that you sent me on 12/16/2012 which I have attached. These
documents show no significant historical site and that State of Florida
does not recommend any further action. Thus we do not see the point of
submitting a grant using tax payer money when the state has already made
a decision on the land. I do not see how you could possibly get a grant
because you would have to divulge these documents attached which say
it’s not worth the state’s time. Please do not trespass on our land for
whatever reason. Thank you, Bob
________________________________
From: Ray Osborne [mailto:rko153@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 7:32 PM
To: bbaugher@cfl.rr.com
Subject: Archaeological Survey, Re: Jim Swann? Re: City Celebration
includes Tribal Dancers, your input requested.
Bob, attached is a doc about the small matching grant application that I
would like to present to the city for the archaeological
survey we discussed.
I just have to narrow it down to the exact location of the ancient sites
that are on the parcel. Are they are on Porter's property or
are they are yours now? You can see the location of these from the
previous survey I sent you.
This proposed archaeological will help clear the area in a sensitive and
sensible way for future development
while restoring our local heritage that goes back 2000 years.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Ray Osborne <rko153@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob,
I spoke to Jim Swann today and he suggested I contact you about my idea.
Will you be in the office tomorrow or Thursday where
I can strop by and discuss them with you?
He's interested enough and asked to be kept in the loop.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Ray Osborne <rko153@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob,
I'm planning an event for our city's anniversary that I know will bring
in tourists to the area. I've asked the city anniversary planning
committee
about corporate sponsorships and they are open to the idea. In fact I
iwll be drafting up a letter for another company this week. So your
company would not be the only one. Although you would be the only hotel.
Sponsorships could range from lodging to meals to actual cash.
Is this something you'd like to be involved with?
Also I'd like to talk to you about another idea I have to bring in
tourists to our area on a consistent basis but will leave that for a
phone call with you.
Please call me when you get a chance at 321-345-1513 <tel:321-345-1513>
.
-RKO
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
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
tyofcapecanaveral.org>
Cc: R.Randels <R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; J.Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Hoog
<B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; agarganese
<agarganese@orlandolaw.net>; kkopp <kkopp@orlandolaw.net>; D.Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; A.Apperson
<A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; T.Morley
<T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Jeffrey.Lucas
<Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com>; gtoenjes <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com>;
bbaugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com>; rko153 <rko153@gmail.com>; Ari
<Ari@cumberlandfarms.com>; ricksbigart tional <ricksbigart@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 7:10 am
Subject: 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not
test eastern half of property
Dear Doctor Parsons and Mr. Dickey (and distinguished
co-recipients):
ESI's map from their 2006 report (Figure 5, page 21, FMSF
#13871) clearly shows that ESI did not conduct any subsurface testing on
the eastern half of the property in question (6455 N. Atlantic Ave. Cape
Canaveral, FL, called "Cabo Verde" in ESI documents).
If you consult that map you will see that ESI did not excavate
any tests along the eastern half of the property, and, perhaps just as
important, did not place a sufficient number of tests along the relict
dune line that r৷︀䪓B罈રમolaw.net