Monday, May 29, 2006
Counterpoint I
Dear Retreat Board Members:
I have read your letter dated May 22, 2006 and would like to take this opportunity to respond to various issues that were brought up in that letter. There are two separate and very distinct issues here. One involves a complaint that was filed last November by a group of Owners alleging, among other things, that the vote that was taken on August 22, 2005 to install Geotubes should not have passed because it did not have the necessary 66 2/3% vote of the entire membership. The other issue has to do with the actual Geotube permitting process that was begun last October and still goes on to this day.
Regarding the complaint that was filed, as you know, depositions are being taken, a mediation session between both parties is planned for this July, and the case is to be heard by the judge this fall. The complaint has been discussed in previous correspondence and there is no need to dwell on it here. Both sides believe they are correct and a judge will ultimately decide who is right.
Regarding the permitting of the Geotubes, I think it only fair that everyone know the history of the permitting process. Your letter states some of the facts of the process but at the same time blames the County and State agencies for not granting The Retreat a permit to perform the Geotube installation work. To summarize, The Retreat has applied for three permits to do the Geotube work. The first application was during the emergency order period after Hurricane Dennis in 2005, the second application was for an Armoring Permit in January, 2006, and the third application was for a General Permit in March, 2006.
The first application to install Geotubes during the emergency order period was granted on September 6, 2005 by Mr. Gerry Demers with
The third application to install Geotubes in March 2006, was denied by Florida DEP on March 31, 2006 because the “sand bag structure is defined as an armoring structure by Rule 62B-33.002(5), F.A.C., and therefore, is not eligible for a general permit.”
The second application to install Geotubes was indeed for an “armoring permit”. That application was sent in to Florida DEP the first week in January, 2006. Florida DEP responded to that request on February 2, 2006 advising that is was incomplete and asking for additional information including name and addresses of all Owners, copies of a signed and sealed survey plat, final construction plans, proof that the project had been advertised in the newspaper, and also an application fee in the amount of $29,300.
Instead of complying with Florida DEP’s request for more information, The Retreat’s attorney, George Mead, tried to go around the armoring permit by filing a general permit and after that was denied, attempted to proceed with no permits. That action led to a “stop work order” by
Finally, the attorney for the Owners that filed the complaint against the Association never threatened to “sue the County if any of the requested relief was given”. Such non-truths only make the Board look more desperate in their attempt to circumvent the permitting process because they feel they are above the law and want to place blame elsewhere. No one is preventing The Retreat from acquiring the permits they need to install Geotubes except The Retreat itself. Mr. Mead obviously lacks the engineering skills necessary to procure permits and should leave that task to Mike Dombrowski with MRD Engineering who has worked with all these various agencies in the past and understands that there are no short cuts when it comes to the permitting process. In short, Mr. Mead is the reason The Retreat cannot get a permit, not a “minority group of owners”.
Jeffrey R. Hughes
