Cuchens' ethics to be questioned if found

[SoWalSally]

By Gabriel Tynes

Walton County Administrator Ronnie Bell told the Florida Department of Environmental Protection two letters written by District Four County Commissioner Rosier Cuchens regarding a single, after-thefact seawall permit last summer were “not official.”

Sarah Williams, a DEP spokesperson, said Cuchens wrote the letters in June, shortly after the wall was discovered by a DEP aerial survey in May. Williams also said there were “no records” of an application ever filed and the DEP then contacted the county to affirm the findings.

On May 16, the DEP sent the property owners a warning letter stating that there was no documentation of the seawall construction at 59 Pelican Circle, and the wall could be “contributing to violations” of construction on the Coastal Control Line.

On June 6, Cuchens wrote a letter to the DEP stating the wall was not in violation of any codes or zoning requirements. He also stated the wall was built on an emergency basis, to prevent the “impending undermining of the house foundation.”

In his second letter received Aug. 4, Cuchens wrote the wall was in compliance with the county’s comprehensive plan. Cuchens’ letters were also accompanied by an after-the-fact seawall permit application and engineering evaluation from Anderson Engineers.

According to Bell, determining which projects are within the guidelines of the comprehensive plan is exclusively the responsibility of engineers from the Walton County Planning and Development Services Division.

Upon learning of Cuchens’ letters on Oct. 16, Bell wrote the DEP to advise that Cuchens’ letters were not “offi cial.” Bell did not refer to Cuchens specifically in his notifi cation, and rather referenced the letters as “county” letters.

In a phone call last week, Assistant County Administrator Shirl Williams said she did “not know what Cuchens was trying to do” with the letters.

“We didn’t hear anything about the wall until after the permit was complete,” Williams said.

She said letters of authorization could only be signed by planning department Environmental Manager Billy McKee, and Cuchens “had no right” to speak for the county in the matter. Furthermore, she said the county has not issued permits outside of emergency guidelines, which expired in October 2005.

According to county public records, the property belongs to Dr. James R. Spires, whose primary residence is in Mobile, Ala. Spires has not fi led any construction papers in almost 10 years, and the only documents pertaining to infrastructure on his two adjacent lots were commencement of construction notifications for the main house, a guest house and a swimming pool.

Today, the property is listed for sale by the owners at a price of $15 million. An online advertisement at forsalebyowner. com lists features such as an alarm system, gated entryway and stucco wall enclosure but does not include any information on a coastal armoring device. The exact measurements of the wall are not known but plat information gives the Spires’ a combined 220 feet of gulf-front property.

A second warning letter from The DEP issued June 26 cautioned the Spires’ that “sand fill appears to have been done outside the subject property boundaries.” Today, between 12-18 inches of wall still protrude from the top of the sand fill, and the project is not complete.

In repeated phone calls last week, Spires and his wife, Michelle, refused to answer questions about the wall and did not respond to messages at his office or on her cell phone.

DEP spokesperson Williams said, “We didn’t see any documentation of the wall until after it was discovered,”

Later, with what they believed was county approval, the DEP deemed the Spires’ application completed. Now, the application has been frozen awaiting a proper review by the planning department.

This is not the first time Cuchens has come under fire for seawall construction. The commissioner was investigated by the Florida Commission on Ethics after Hurricane Dennis for approving emergency armoring permits which subsequently brought revenue to his family’s own construction business. That operation, Choctawhatchee Bay Piling and Dock, Inc., built dozens of seawalls after the emergency permits were issued last year.

On Oct. 10, the FCE found that Cuchens had no “voting conflict when he voted on measures affecting his private business.”

No records indicate which company constructed the Spires’ wall last spring.

After a flurry of coastal construction projects last fall, many walls are now barely noticeable – hidden beneath steep slopes of sand covered with growing vegetation. Yet controversy over the emergency seawall permitting process has been swirling in both private and public arenas since the day they were originally conceived. There have been previous problems with private encroachment on public land, miscommunication about regulations and guidelines, and allegations of inequality and subjectivity.

At the BCC meeting on Oct. 10, attorney Dana Matthews openly insinuated that the county has routinely mishandled the permitting process, and the comprehensive plan actually suggests the walls could be built with the stipulation that they protect the dune systems. He also testified that the county issued other permits without the knowledge of county planning engineers.

Matthews, who was representing four property owners unrelated to the Spires’ case, was seeking approval to continue all seawall construction without emergency permits, which have not been issued since October 2005. He believes the county should be removed from the process all together.

“This ‘cooperation’ between the county and the state has been a nightmare,” Matthews said. “A quandary.”

“The county abrogated jurisdiction of the beach to the DEP in 1996,” Matthews explained. “And now their involvement is obstructing the very progress they are trying to achieve.

“If [the county] wants to delegate, they need to step back and decide how to do it because we can’t have a half-armored, unregulated beach.”

Meanwhile, Sarah Williams said the DEP has received “several” afterthe-fact applications from Walton County, although their requirements continue to mandate county approval.

“[This case] is not isolated,” Williams said. “But the DEP will not issue permanent permits without official county approval.”

[buckjones]

and also have had a good bit of experience dealing with the Planning Dept. My thoughts:
1. To reiterate from the article, not only was there no DEP permit issued prior to constructing this 200' seawall(which probably cost $150k), neither was there ANY county permit of any type.
2. Does anyone actually believe that this "temporary wall" will have to be torn down? Of course not, and the lesson for the rest of us continues to be, those with $$ and power will do what they want and if caught ask for forgiveness later.
3. This type wall with a 90 degree angle on the end will absolutely undermine the neighbors dirt when the next storm surge comes along running down the beach.
4. Even if one has DEP approval for a seawall, is it permissible to build seaward of the CCL? Seaward of your own property line? This owner does not have a metes and bounds legal description, but rather is in a subdivision and I believe the wall probably is seaward of his property line.

The Walton Planning office will have to be the subject of another post, but suffice it to say IF you can get an answer from them, It'll probably be wrong. They do not return calls, do not answer emails, and generally do not want to see you in person-basically the opposite of what a public agency should be. The lesson I am learning is to just go ahead and do what you want; do not under any circumstances ask for permission.

[Smiling JOe]

Excellent, my project for my property in north county is in full swing as long as the county has their hands full down by the beach. Anything goes.

[jimmyp5]

Anything goes.

JOE, I'm sure you're right .... but this whole seawall permitting issue, on public property, "we didn't know", is-there-a-problem-that-the-county-comissioner-was-our-contractor? mentality is either a) business as usual or, b) a bad portent of things to come. Either way, it doesn't make me hopeful for where SoWal may be headed. Private property rights above all else, above anything else, above common sense, will be the undoing of this, or any, place.

[Miss Kitty]

JOE, I'm sure you're right .... but this whole seawall permitting issue, on public property, "we didn't know", is-there-a-problem-that-the-county-comissioner-was-our-contractor? mentality is either a) business as usual or, b) a bad portent of things to come. Either way, it doesn't make me hopeful for where SoWal may be headed. Private property rights above all else, above anything else, above common sense, will be the undoing of this, or any, place.

jimmyp5...if this info is out in the court of public record and opinion, will things not be changed? I would like to think that the bad apples will be thrown out.

[pgurney]

JOE, I'm sure you're right .... but this whole seawall permitting issue, on public property, "we didn't know", is-there-a-problem-that-the-county-comissioner-was-our-contractor? mentality is either a) business as usual or, b) a bad portent of things to come. Either way, it doesn't make me hopeful for where SoWal may be headed. Private property rights above all else, above anything else, above common sense, will be the undoing of this, or any, place.

I bolded the part of your post above because in this particular instance, this is not considered public property. The beach in front of this wall, and which the wall was apparently built, is the common property of the neighborhood. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[SHELLY]

What's the problem with just one more seawall?

The commissioners need to either:

(a) Put on their big-girl panties and order ALL the walls come down immediately!

....OR...

(b) Drop this charade of "concern" for the environmental/property line issues/permits that's wasting valuable tax dollars--and let all beachfront owners do what they will.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

What's the problem with just one more seawall?

The commissioners need to either:

(a) Put on their big-girl panties and order ALL the walls come down immediately!

....OR...

(b) Drop this charade of "concern" for the environmental/property line issues/permits that's wasting valuable tax dollars--and let all beachfront owners do what they will.

I have read this post 10 times and can possibly interpret it that many ways. Shelly, please help me here. What ARE you saying?

[Bobby J]

[Pirate]

Not to speak for Shelley but the point is the county needs to grow a pair and remove some walls at the offending land owners' expense, or just admit they don't give a damn and stop the charade.

I am stunned the owners around these properties aren't pursuing legal action.

[IGN]

Not to speak for Shelley but the point is the county needs to grow a pair and remove some walls at the offending land owners' expense, or just admit they don't give a damn and stop the charade.

I am stunned the owners around these properties aren't pursuing legal action.

The neighborhood this seawall is located in has a litigous history regarding common property, or neighborhood property, rights. IMO this house was never in immediate danger of being undermined...no more so than it's neighbors. Take a look at the aerial after Dennis. The house in this article is in the lower right hand corner of the picture...the large one with pool and white roof. There are homes in this aerial that are closer, very close, to being undermined. A few of these homes have shored up by adding sand, there have been no other seawalls built (within the limits of this aerial) other than the one mentioned in the article.

[Here4Good]

Sorry, but I love this headline - does it mean that Ro's ethics will be questioned, if we can ever find them?

In that case, he's safe.

[Smiiling JOe]

Ro Cuchens and ethics should never be used together.

[Miss Kitty]

Ro Cuchens and ethics should never be used together.

Oxymoron

[Laughing JAne]

Oxymoron

You've got that right.

[Smiling JOe]

Posts from Impooster JOe should never be taken seriously.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

The neighborhood this seawall is located in has a litigous history regarding common property, or neighborhood property, rights. IMO this house was never in immediate danger of being undermined...no more so than it's neighbors. Take a look at the aerial after Dennis. The house in this article is in the lower right hand corner of the picture...the large one with pool and white roof. There are homes in this aerial that are closer, very close, to being undermined. A few of these homes have shored up by adding sand, there have been no other seawalls built (within the limits of this aerial) other than the one mentioned in the article.

First, .

Second, at least you used the letters "IMO" to qualify your statement about the house not being in immediate danger. It's your opinion but it may not be an accurate one. ASSUMING your house is not in immediate danger of burning down, would you forgo buying insurance? My point is that the words "immediate danger" is very subjective. A tropical storm may not threaten him... a category 4 would wipe him (and many others without retaining walls) out from undermining.

Third, talking about "shored up by adding sand"... do you think this will protect these homes if another Dennis hits now during the beach's current weakened state? I'm not sure why you mentioned this in the scope of this discussion.

Fourth, you said that no other seawalls have been built in the area. Are you suggesting that if your neighbor elects to go down their ship (by not installing their own retaining walls), that you should as well? I'm just trying to understand your logic.

Do you own property in the area? A little perspective would help us understand your position. Thanks.

[Smiiling JOe]

First, .

Second, at least you used the letters "IMO" to qualify your statement about the house not being in immediate danger. It's your opinion but it may not be an accurate one. ASSUMING your house is not in immediate danger of burning down, would you forgo buying insurance? My point is that the words "immediate danger" is very subjective. A tropical storm may not threaten him... a category 4 would wipe him (and many others without retaining walls) out from undermining.

Third, talking about "shored up by adding sand"... do you think this will protect these homes if another Dennis hits now during the beach's current weakened state? I'm not sure why you mentioned this in the scope of this discussion.

Fourth, you said that no other seawalls have been built in the area. Are you suggesting that if your neighbor elects to go down their ship (by not installing their own retaining walls), that you should as well? I'm just trying to understand your logic.

Do you own property in the area? A little perspective would help us understand your position. Thanks.

Did Ro write a letter for you, too?

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I bolded the part of your post above because in this particular instance, this is not considered public property. The beach in front of this wall, and which the wall was apparently built, is the common property of the neighborhood. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Hi pgurney,

I'm glad you clarified the public property issue in this case. There are many here on the board that fail to understand the differences between public, private and common beach property.

Another observation (not aimed at you BTW, pgurney)...

Here's a quote from the article..."A second warning letter from The DEP issued June 26 cautioned the Spires’ that “sand fill appears to have been done outside the subject property boundaries.” Today, between 12-18 inches of wall still protrude from the top of the sand fill, and the project is not complete. "

It doesn't say that the wall is on common property but just the sand.

Now, many here believe it is a requirement to cover a retaining wall with sand. From my research, it is not a requirement. I can understand that it is a strong desire of Walton County from a tourism standpoint as a covered wall project does look a little nicer because you can't see it.

With that said, why are people opposing the adding of sand to cover this wall? Because it is taking away from the beach in regards to the "common (private) property" of the neighborhood? Shouldn't the neighborhood be the ones passing judgement and not the rest of us?

Along the same lines, the article perpetuates the idea that the walls have to be covered in order for the project to be deemed complete.

Thoughts appreciated.

[buckjones]

The neighborhood association should be passing judgement, and I hope they do. If this was built on community property, it still doesn't change the fact that the owner DOES NOT own the property where he built the thing. If it is on community property, shouldn't he have sought permission from them? Also it doesn't change the fact that not a permit was pulled from any agency prior to it being built-which IMO makes it free game for any taxpayer in the County to object and make it their business.

[peapod1980]

Sounds like a bunch of illegal small town politics to me.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

The neighborhood association should be passing judgement, and I hope they do. If this was built on community property, it still doesn't change the fact that the owner DOES NOT own the property where he built the thing. If it is on community property, shouldn't he have sought permission from them?

Reread the post. Nothing says that he built the wall on community or public property - only that sand was placed on property not belonging exclusively to him.

Also it doesn't change the fact that not a permit was pulled from any agency prior to it being built-which IMO makes it free game for any taxpayer in the County to object and make it their business.

You're correct (IMO). Now that's really what is at issue here (in this case)....not private property, common property, public property, immediate danger of collapse, covering of wall with sand, etc., etc.

[Smiling JOe]

Tear 'em all down.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Tear 'em all down.

You IMPOSTER!!!

ooops, wait a minute.......
ONE i .
It really is you!

[Smiiling JOe]

I think we should armour the entire beach with rip rap.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I think we should armour the entire beach with rip rap.

"Will the REAL Smiling Joe PLEASE stand up?"

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I think we should armour the entire beach with rip rap.

That would work.

[Smiiling JOe]

That would work.

I know it would work. It would make all of the tourists leave and never come back. Life in SoWal would be nice and quiet. Who cares about the beach? Just give me peace and quiet.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I know it would work. It would make all of the tourists leave and never come back. Life in SoWal would be nice and quiet. Who cares about the beach? Just give me peace and quiet.

Good idea.

[Bob]

In the next big storm, lash the "armored" homeowners to their seawalls. Maybe they will wash ashore in Daytona Beach and be right at home.

[kathydwells]

I know it would work. It would make all of the tourists leave and never come back. Life in SoWal would be nice and quiet. Who cares about the beach? Just give me peace and quiet.

[buckjones]

and also have had a good bit of experience dealing with the Planning Dept. My thoughts:
1. To reiterate from the article, not only was there no DEP permit issued prior to constructing this 200' seawall(which probably cost $150k), neither was there ANY county permit of any type.
2. Does anyone actually believe that this "temporary wall" will have to be torn down? Of course not, and the lesson for the rest of us continues to be, those with $$ and power will do what they want and if caught ask for forgiveness later.
3. This type wall with a 90 degree angle on the end will absolutely undermine the neighbors dirt when the next storm surge comes along running down the beach.
4. Even if one has DEP approval for a seawall, is it permissible to build seaward of the CCL? Seaward of your own property line? This owner does not have a metes and bounds legal description, but rather is in a subdivision and I believe the wall probably is seaward of his property line.

The Walton Planning office will have to be the subject of another post, but suffice it to say IF you can get an answer from them, It'll probably be wrong. They do not return calls, do not answer emails, and generally do not want to see you in person-basically the opposite of what a public agency should be. The lesson I am learning is to just go ahead and do what you want; do not under any circumstances ask for permission.

The DEP has denied the "after the fact" application for a seawall in this case.

[rapunzel]

What will happen to the wall now?

[Smiling JOe]

Interesting to see Cuchens and ethics used in the same title.

[John R]

Interesting to see Cuchens and ethics used in the same title.

i saw the thread title and asked myself "how can there be a question regarding ro's ethics?"

[Franny]

There is an article in the Sun paper today regarding the seawall. Interesting!

[buckjones]

(because it contains DEP's "out" to allow this wall to remain) I paraphrase, but "vegetation was found growing on the sand covering the wall".

As the writer tried to note, this is a TOTAL fabrication. There is not, nor has there ever been, any vegetation on that wall. Of course, I'm sure the landowner is out there as we speak planting some. Best money he will ever spend.

[Smiling JOe]

I bet the property owner is also ordering truckloads of sand to cover that long seawall's presently uncovered top 4' +.

Here is the article from the Walton Sun:
DEP orders homeowners to remove unauthorized seawall
By Gabriel Tynes
April 28, 2007 5:31 AM

The seawall at 59 Pelican Circle in Seacrest Beach appears the same today (above)



At least one South Walton County seawall will have to be pulled from the sand after the Department of Environmental Protection denied its state permit request.

The wall, located at 59 Pelican Circle in Seacrest Beach, has been under particular scrutiny since it was determined to be unauthorized in May 2006. The homeowners, Dr. James and Michelle Spires of Mobile, Ala., never obtained county permission for the wall.

Subsequently, Terry Anderson, a Walton County engineer, attempted to acquire an after-the-fact state permit on behalf of the homeowners. As a part of that process, former county commissioner Rosier Cuchens issued a letter of approval in the county’s name, bypassing normal planning department procedures, something he was not authorized to do.

In a letter dated April 17, Michael Barnett, chief of the DEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, concluded that the structures on the property were never eligible for shoreline protection. Even if it was, the letter said, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission guidelines would recommend its denial based on “significant adverse impacts” to turtle nesting sites.

“Based on the forgoing facts and law, the DEP denies the request for a permit for the construction of a seawall and orders its removal after Oct. 31, 2007, and before May 1, 2008,” the letter states.
In a confusing bit of language, the letter does provide a manner for prolonging the seawall’s existence “since [it] is presently covered with sand fill and native dune vegetation.”

On April 24, the wall did not appear to have changed since November 2006. There is as much as four feet of vertical exposure and it is barren of any vegetation, native or otherwise.

“We came to that conclusion upon our last inspection of the site,” said DEP Press Secretary Sarah Williams. “Our inspector noted sand coverage and native vegetation.”

Williams said she did not know if the absence of either the sand fill or the vegetation would affect the special stipulation, which would allow the wall to stay until it is exposed or undermined. “Everything we have on the case is current with that letter,” she said. The homeowners were given 15 days from the receipt of the letter to ask for the seawall to remain temporarily. They have 21 days from the receipt of the letter to file for an administrative hearing to dispute the denial.

[John R]

Was this seawall ever removed?

At least one South Walton County seawall will have to be pulled from the sand after the Department of Environmental Protection denied its state permit request.

The wall, located at 59 Pelican Circle in Seacrest Beach, has been under particular scrutiny since it was determined to be unauthorized in May 2006. The homeowners, Dr. James and Michelle Spires of Mobile, Ala., never obtained county permission for the wall.

[wrobert]

Was this seawall ever removed?

At least one South Walton County seawall will have to be pulled from the sand after the Department of Environmental Protection denied its state permit request.

The wall, located at 59 Pelican Circle in Seacrest Beach, has been under particular scrutiny since it was determined to be unauthorized in May 2006. The homeowners, Dr. James and Michelle Spires of Mobile, Ala., never obtained county permission for the wall.

How would someone find this out? Just go see?

[Abby Prentiss]

Say no to good ole boy politics. Say no to ignorance. Say no to Ro.

[coppertone10]

As a 30-year resident of Walton County, I can remember each of Ro Cuchens' previous terms. The thing that helped me most was the fact that I was always able to tell when Rosier was lying - his lips were moving.
As an earlier post noted, I am surprised to see the words "Ro" and "ethics" in the same sentence, so you can guess what my motto is --
NoMoRo !!!

[Abby Prentiss]

The problem is he will get tons of votes from "friends" north of the bay and people in the south end - well, to be kind, they are out of town or out to lunch much of the time and could care less who is in charge.

[Lake View Too]

The problem is he will get tons of votes from "friends" north of the bay and people in the south end - well, to be kind, they are out of town or out to lunch much of the time and could care less who is in charge.

Well said.

[rapunzel]

I'm predicting that won't be so much the case this time around. Particularly in precinct 29. Vote by Mail registration is up, and I think people may have learned a lesson with the whole Cecelia Jones debacle. We shall see...

[coppertone10]

You are so right. How ethical is it for an acting commissioner to actually make calls to people she doesn't know, asking them not to vote for Comander because she "doesn't vote the right way." I guess Ms. Jones thinks the right way is to vote for higher taxes and to keep her husband's health insurance on the backs of taxpayers as long as possible. Looks like her ethics are missing, too, assuming she ever had any.

I'm predicting that won't be so much the case this time around. Particularly in precinct 29. Vote by Mail registration is up, and I think people may have learned a lesson with the whole Cecelia Jones debacle. We shall see...