Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFW Archaeological Survey Re Jim Swann Re City Celebration includes Tribal Dancers your input requestedLadies, 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>, &apos;Bill Moberg&apos; <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 ᕾ⮋茩ꇠ䞘裃㣥î̠칋좹ދĚ尳鉵楨ꍷњ풆糀⇹ひ䮅죊➓텐梏ể有䰨箯딋⹋뱺吕䌳厠쳈䨰╔ꯗ馑泈෭傡鄿ﭾ鶃㔎訂뽷ꬮ㈣䇃敖磙ܔᐹ昏㲿妖㫽虴ꔎ䊎栾톼଍샷쉹✛騗ཬ刯촙鄡圶솧婼抴軵≢쎼넚᫵忧ъ词訖￶촡仴뚲㝀�㿘筠孿䥴뷴걗迖�㸺ꈢ᭪冻裂첨ᚋᯂ䛼풇䜞庥꣰䒎多콮ᜮ緦ꑘ⭪ﭓ͘䴝떕찥淉㤘螺爗㸧歑૕㨺鿰̀弎ഗ攊摮瑳敲浡攍摮扯൪㤵㔸〠漠橢㰍⼼楂獴敐䍲浯潰敮瑮㠠䌯汯牯灓捡⁥〶㠲〠删䘯汩整⽲汆瑡䑥捥 摯⽥效杩瑨㈠⼹敌杮桴ㄠ⼴畓瑢灹⽥浉条⽥祔数堯扏敪瑣圯摩桴ㄠ㸾瑳敲浡਍�恢ঠࠀ0圀Ā਍湥獤牴慥൭湥潤橢㔍㠹‶‰扯൪㰼䈯瑩偳牥潃灭湯湥⁴⼸潃潬卲慰散㘠ㄷ‱‰⽒楆瑬牥䘯慬整敄潣敤䠯楥桧⁴㘷䰯湥瑧⁨〷⼷畓瑢灹⽥浉条⽥祔数堯扏敪瑣圯摩桴ㄠ㸷猾牴慥൭栊䳞ওቻေ⦆춅�ꅤ儘阹䚖櫚뻱뱏궨￿뼗겙ᶏ⒖餻㍼뻉�鷻Ꝏ螻햧盭䔋᭚ᨘ혲஽啥ꫂપ㼎奘傆஡藑藝蚼䭣�幂堘藇㵕穾蔐ద킒夯ᨙ羡�씹훠쁠鲁䔍丹಍謢욵�䥚閭 禨傈嵮疐ᄭ㼡뽪戞녥瘧佛Ⲇࠄꔉ廐蔩룈㑥伞ꌦ瓑餺㽈♺硶㑴ᾛ἞ᵇ䱣ꤩꊘ虒�뚲荁灑擈㜨턨⤓딝劷䆄ﯺ㤋᱿ਿツ嫄்擈ᨭᏸ췑廢᪦隇㈘쭊좖좚鐒嘟ꕧჁ铪嚢訅웕麞ꔩꇘ菣墔ꇬᅑꟵ腲剑獆㆙輖⼞憢≊迪Ꞝꊡ읽Ꮵ报麑䪒밅ꥈ⚔粴됶鵻﷽ꝶ櫝缽몶㱤Ꜹ끼⟸랝㞖銅澝쪨阔⧿ഌ㺅텳⠐唟ኡ䉆壆�✫㈔チ෺ꪢㅌ塓澖࿱鋍⅌੥ᖝ鍇ತﯯƒ㋅삖⌬࿯퉂⹞䙋�蠏룵⑘垠辽㲟뭨鯧㨔ᄮ퇋쮔輔匿ժ윒�㴄麬埃柏窳ᨅ�਍ἵ֑饒㋂㠈 㑨ꊾ恷ῤࢅ乡㸴縱᧤䄛禈老낳を殝蒶⇳㝹慌㍶钅⣍눎ᡟ쌻ᳪ蝥蜜ᔚ歗슘〳钒忖瀗㩨㛽㔄㯪䊠솯퉩ᕉ阿䬊⢔꥖䊆匝說ᠦꌸ윅긘ៗ㼗ⸯ귑埗线嵟뙮�睶�맽�¯䨛਍湥獤牴慥൭湥潤橢㔍㠹‷‰扯൪㰼䈯瑩偳牥潃灭湯湥⁴⼸潃潬卲慰散㘠㈰‸‰⽒楆瑬牥䘯慬整敄潣敤䠯楥桧⁴㤲䰯湥瑧⁨㐱匯扵祴数䤯慭敧启灹⽥佘橢捥⽴楗瑤⁨㸲猾牴慥൭栊拞ᡠJ쀠