I am on his side. Once permits are issued and the work is done, the homeowner shouldn't take a loss due to a mistake or change of heart on the part of the city/state.
Unless he violated the permits that were issued. This reporter did a terrible job only reporting exactly what this one person told and showed him without researching what the permits actually allowed and without looking up the route of the channel that effectively is the end of the canal into the main river channel.
Worst case the state/DEP should pay the citizens costs for the dock, including the demolition and/or relocation costs. Best case the DEP pays for the dredging since it may have been their error in the first place.
Did he build it to the exact specification of the permits? Is his college buddy in charge of the department that issues permits? Regardless, it looks like he can afford it, times are tough all over. Yes, he paid 28M in taxes, but he also profited personally from the income that paid those taxes. It is a monstrousity--190 feet long? Absolutely zero purpose, except for maybe vanity or overcompensation.
@@stevelibby6852 Libby. Appropriate name. The State works for the tax payer not the other way around. This guy’s success helps pay for things the community as a whole enjoys. There is no reason to diminish his success and assume it is okay for him to pay for a dock removal simply because he can afford it. Surmising his college buddy got him the permit is childish thinking not backed up by proof. The dock matches his surrounding neighbors. I would say the length is because the depth near shore is shallow and the dock length gets them to deep water. Extremely common and written into the permit.
Or he's an asshole who's hoping for a cheaper solution to a problem that he created himself. There was already a channel that made his long dock unnecessary, but he filed a permit application that (probably fraudulently) didn't disclose that.
@@suedenim9208 The state gave him the permit, the neighbors knew this as all neighbors are notified that dock construction has been applied for and then have the chance to say something, not after it's finished. Not his fault neighbors ignored notice.
@@suedenim9208 so, both permits he applied for were fraudulent.....but the news didn't include that in the report??? LOL If they were "bad permits", the Dr. would have no case. You're a fool.....and a jealous one at that. LOL
@@suedenim9208 To get a permit you have a posted hearing, where was the the dickhead Monday morning quarterback then? If Dredging a new channel is doable what is the problem? You would have to occasionally dredge the old channel to keep it open anyway. No pun intended but something is very FISHY about this story. I agree with another poster the Government is sucking the life blood out of this country. Evidently whiners rule the day.
@@suedenim9208 Not to mention the intellectual dishonesty of implying that dredging is a permanent solution. A "solution" that's "good enough for now" (for problems with a permanent fixture) to make rich owners happy, then it gets forgotten over the years and no one considers themselves responsible, is how we got the Johnstown flood that killed 2200 people.
The fact that he's willing to pay for the dredging himself go's to show he's genuinely trying to finds a reasonable solution. Hope things work out for this guy.
@@miamiwax5504: This isn’t rocket science. The dock was built after the permits had been issued. If anyone is in the wrong it’s the agency who issued the permits!!
This is illogical. Every home has a comparable dock. The homes using the canal should pay to dredge the straight line to the lake. That is the reasonable solution.
What about the fact that the dock he had built was both longer and larger than the permit approved? Should he be given an exception because he's rich and believes that alone allows him to ignore everyone around him and do what he wants?
@@nobodyspecial4702 That was not stated in the video. His neighbors' docks are longer than his. He stated he is even willing to pay the dredging cost. This is messed up!
@@jbhcrazyskills9508 Because he's only giving the information he wants. The full story makes it perfectly clear this guy is a lying sack. He knew his dock was blocking the public access and exceeding the permit allowances, which he only got by falsifying the applications and insists that because he's rich he should get away with it.
@@nobodyspecial4702 so where are your sources? Nothing you said was in the video, so when you say stuff like that, you need yo present your sources. Nobody is going to take your word for it.
This isn’t ‘rich people problems’ this is a goverment scamming someone into paying for two permits just to magically deny them because they feel like it. How long till they do that to your drivers license?
I am with the homeowner here. I hope if he sues the state, the question of why the permits were issued in the first place is investigated. One would think the permit office would consider the impact a new lakeside structure would have on navigation before issuing a permit. The fact that this was neglected, and that they are only taking an action on it because another homeowner complained, is altogether disgracefully. edit: After reading the court case my opinion has changed. Things are not as the news made it seem. see below.
@@teevee2145 Depends how you define "win". If he can prove that government incompetency granted him a permit for which a permit should never have been permitted, than he could be deserving of compensation for damages. I'm sure a lawyer could phrase it better. Like you said, the state can't permit blockage of navigation. So why was that granted to him?
@@potblack6043 it would be cheaper to tear it out. I just argued a case like this in appeal. The guy must file quickly under an admin procedure act. Will be very short then be barred. The courts protect bureaucratic incompetence for sure
@@teevee2145 The guy owns a lakefront house in Florida. He dropped 85 thousand dollars to have a new dock installed, then when the issue of navigation was brought up, offered to pay out of pocket to have a new channel dredged. I am sure he has the money and will for a case.
As a contractor I've had a permit issued and the inspector dening use of materials before we started. This dock had an inspector check the progress of the dock and signed it off. His only recourse is sue the state or pay thousands in attorney fees.
Whose responsibility is it to file a complete and accurate permit, and what happens if you file a permit application with false or incorrect information that isn't caught right away? Are you stupid enough to think that if you include an inaccurate survey you won't have to correct the problem if you've violated a setback requirement or even built on a neighbor's property?
@@suedenim9208 hey dodo 🦤 . Material requirements change from one city to the next. All cities are not on the same page. You sound like an angry over weight wife.
@@reader3769 The very first thing the court pointed out was that he never posted the permit notice. The second thing they pointed out was that the dock he had built exceeded even what the permit allowed. The third was that his permits were invalid because he submitted false information on them. The fourth was that being rich doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Copying comment for your attention. "Chele Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
He did NOT do "everything right". He was informed of the channel well beforehand and should have included that in his permit application. Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent of the existence of the permitted boat access channel that provided navigational access to residents of the western canal to Doctors Lake, a statement heard by Lt. Commander Van Hook. The conversation was memorable because Mr. Goria stated his belief that Mr. Kent was fortunate that his boat lift was going to be right on his bulkhead, which would save him considerable money on having to build a dock. When Mr. Kent expressed surprise, Mr. Goria explained that we dredged a channel for the canal lot owners that goes and meanders right along your bulkhead and then goes out between you and [lot] 17. Mr. Kent stated that he wanted a big dock, 4 to which Mr. Goria stated that he would be blocking the channel near his bulkhead used by the canal front owners. Mr. Goria testified that Mr. Kent then stated that well, that's their problem. They can't stop me. 39. Lt. Commander Van Hook testified, credibly and without reservation, that Mr. Goria made it 100 percent clear on a two - way dialogue that without a doubt, there's a boat access channel that runs along the bulkhead that provides access from the folks that live back on the canal, the petitioners. access to the deeper waters out in Doctors Lake. He testified to his recollection of the conversation that I know [ Mr. Goria] said [the channel] ran parallel to the bulkhead that gets out there so parallel to the Romeo Point bulkhead. So if that puts it u p against your lot, depending on how far it goes out there, I just know that it ran parallel. I don't know how far off. He then stated that Mr. Kent s only response pretty much was he's going to apply either way. His plans were to build an extended dock. When asked if it was reasonable for one to conclude that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the 4 Mr. Kent s desire to have a big dock on Lot 18 was not new. As he testified at hearing, I mean, hey, it's everybody's dream to live on the water. But for this particular area, I mean, come on. Who wouldn't walk up to [Lot 18] and want a boat dock. I wanted a boat dock before I bought it. boat access channel as a result of the conversation, Lt. Commander Van Hook replied , Yes, sir, without a doubt.
What kills me is the route that the person claiming an obstruction to navigation is taking. I mean it's so close to shore that this guy wouldn't even be able to really have a dock at all. If he has an issue with the new dock obstructing him... Why is there no issue with the dock to the port side exiting the canal? Looking at this graphic... All of the docks are comparable in length... Some are even longer.
He in fact knew about the channel in front of his lot that provides access to the canal prior to building the dock. He knew he was only authorized a shore side dock and could not block the channel. The route straight in isn’t pasable at low tide. The permit application he submitted was inaccurate and misleading. He further build the dock out of compliance with the permit he has, making it 33 feet longer and having three slips and floating dock for a PWC that wasn’t allowed. The second permit he got was an after the fact permit due to his dock not complying with the first permit. Read about it here. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
When the subdivision was created, before the houses were built, the channel was permitted and dredged there to provide deep water access to the lots on the canal *and* lot 18, whcih is where the dock guy lives. He could have built a dock out from his land whcih would have allowed him to have a boat and also use that channel for access. There is in fact, sufficient room for him to have built a dock between his shoreline and the channel. He knew all this, know that the dredged channel was there, and knew that his dock would block the dredged channel.
@@dopeytripod What kills me is that I work 50 hours a week minimum,save,and invest for the last 35 years to get ahead and millions of people watch tv and smoke weed all day
@@AAAskeet The agency granting the permit did a lousy job. The application for the permit for the dock concealed the known ( by the homeowner) existence of the dredged channel, but the agency didn’t do their due diligence otherwise they would have found the existing permit for the channel and recognized the conflict. There’s blame to go around.
he knew about the channel, was warned he couldn't shouldn't build there and still did. his fault... floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf page 19-20 get into details. (hijacking top comment)
@@craftsoda * And the state, which issued the 2 permits, didn't know about the channel, or the problems that could result from the building of that dock? Who is in charge of issuing these permits, the Biden administration?
I'm skeptical that he got a real, no BS quite from a competent marine contractor to handle the permitting for a new boat channel, and dredging the new channel to the same dimensions of the previously dredged channel that hid dock blocked. (35 ft wide and more than 6 feet deep. ) for $ 28,000 I think that's some BS number he's throwing around.
this is ridiculous. If they didn't want him to build the dock, they should've denied the permit before it was built. This is why giving government this kind of power is dangerous.
Copying comment for your attention. "Chele Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
Copying comment for your attention. "Chele Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
Funny how so many folks are commenting to support the guy. He did NOT have a permit for the dock he built. He violated the permit he was issued. No he crying "I pay taxes lot of taxes because I am rich and the law doesn't apply to me.
@@DJUwU There was no follow up news report. As far as I can tell, he involved the news because the case went south for him. He wanted to turn public opinion in his favor.
read pages 19-10 for pertinent details and where the home owner knew he was going over a previously permitted channel. seems he lost. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf page 19-20 get into details.
How about reading some of the comments where it is clearly referencing the documents showing the owner knew about the channel and was lying on his permits. The state is in the right, the owner is in the wrong, and the reporter did not due the proper investigating to report this.
I doubt that very seriously. If the man knew there was a channel in front of his house and it ran the same direction of his dock, then there would have been no need to build a dock that long in order to get his boat house in deep enough water to get his boat in and out of the lift. It would have been considerably less expensive to build the boat house right off of his sea wall.
@@ralfie8801 He could in fact have build a small dock off his sea wall. and in fact that is what he did after he tore down the long dock. If you go to his Facebook page, he has pictures of his new dock. The history is pretty well laid out in the court decision: The developers of the subdivision got a permit for, and dredged a 35 ft wide 6+ ft deep channel to provide deep draft access to not only the homeowners on the canal, but also to Dockman's lot and his next door neighbor. They also placed channel markers there to mark the location of the channel. That all happened long before he bought his lot and built his house. When he told his neighbors about his planes to build a long dock, he was informed of the channel by the neighbors, one of whcih was one of he developers of the subdivision, and it was pointed out to him that he would be blocking the access for his neighbors. He said "That's their problem" This all took place before he applied for the permit. His permit application concealed the existence of the channel, whcih was unquestionably known to him. His application contained a lake bed profile showing it to be shallow, flat and gradually sloping out form shore to the deeper part of the lake. It did not show the 6' deep boat channel whcih he knew existed. If his application had shown that he was building his dock across an established permitted and dredged boat channel, it would likely have been denied. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf Additionally he got a permit for a 160 ft dock, and built his dock 190 feet long. He got a permit for a dock with a single slip, and the dock he built had 3 slips. There was also a specified height off the water that he wasn't in compliance with. Those details aren't directly related to the blocking of the channel, but they serve to illustrate what sort of a guy this is. Bottom line is that he had no need to build 190 FT LONG DOCK TO GET TO DEEP WATER, BECAUSE HE *already* had deep water boat access via the dredged channel, he knew the channel was there, and he he knew he was blocking it, and his application contained false information that concealed the known channel. That's why he got his permits revoked. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
@@andrewalexander9492 Then why didn’t you say that before? Instead we just got basically he did it out of spite. I certainly wouldn’t have built a dock that long unless I absolutely had to, thus my original statement. On the other hand from one of the drawings I saw, why would the original dredged channel come out of the canal and then turn to follow the shoreline in front of his property and turn again to go out instead of just going straight out of the canal to deeper water? Edit: I didn’t notice you weren’t the original commenter that didn’t explain until now, sorry.
I need to ask: Did the state offer just compensation or have they simply told the guy to take the loss? If the state did not offer just compensation, then the state should take a walk off his lovely dock.
Funny how so many folks are commenting to support the guy. He did NOT have a permit for the dock he built. He violated the permit he was issued. No he crying "I pay taxes lot of taxes because I am rich and the law doesn't apply to me.
@@jasonmcmillan6598 Sounds like he didn't have a permit he had two. Funny I had the exact opposite reaction. I am surprised that people are siding with the government, evidently because the guy is successful.
@@HolyEyeWasHere he did not have a permit for what he built. He got a permit and then built it larger and in a different location than his permit- AKA he committed fraud
In my town the city gave permits to build homes in an area that was unstable and when the ground shifted the homes were deemed uninhabitable.the city said oops and that was all.
Areas with unstable soil can be built on if the contractor takes the time and expense to hire an engineer who will ensure the foundation work is adequate. Sounds like the builders cut corners and the consumers didn't take the time to evaluate their investment.
A Permit doesn’t guarantee the quality of a builders work. It’s simply guarantees that it’s an appropriate place for the building and that the general design is it acceptable to the community.
Sue them! You can’t pull a permit after you’ve approved it and project is done. That’s ridiculous! All this because one person complained about his kayak? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
His permit was for a specific length, he built past that length. Get a permit for a 2 story house, then build a 3 story house. You will have to tear the whole house down.
There are links to the rest of the story in several other comments. Apparently, the guy was trying to pull a fast one on the state and on his neighbors and got caught. Filed false info in the application to get a permit, then violated/exceeded the terms of the permit. Counted on his "elite status" to get his way and break the laws. He lost, apparently.
Sounded crazy until you read that the dock was permitted a length of 160ft and he built it 190ft...into the canal/channel so he could dock a bigger boat. 20-000614 Mark Sheffler, Michael Davis, Steven Fuzzell, And Mitchell Ergle vs. Andrew Kent...
@@rayh592 Thats not how it works. They didnt consider a permit and deny him. They approved and granted him the permit. The state cant just change the mind after someone builds. This is an easy win for him in court.
Ahh, no. The neighbour can prove in court the state had made a mistake. The state should tear it down and pay all the bills. Dock owner seems like an entilted nob.
not really, if it was just finished, your looking at 30k in wood, 16k in new boat lifts, plus the roof structure. after labor, which will be high probably a few grand profit.
After research more into the topic. I side with the town on this one. The reasoning is that yes he did get the permit which was approved by town. He did not follow the guidelines of the permit which is his fault. The home owner is in the wrong.
County/State Agencies have their own lawyers and judges. Yes, you can file an appeal within an agency, but only to a certain level. Beyond that, I'm not sure, except that civil courts don't want to be inundated with cases. Civil courts are backed-up as it is. Yes, you can have an attorney represent your case in an agency law matter (L&I, SS, etc.). If I was a juror in this case, I would rule against the county in this matter. I would also award punitive damages to cover the homeowner's legal costs.
He lost. He tore down his dock, and built a dock on his shoreline whcih uses the dredged channel for deep water access. That's what he should have done in the first place. He had no need of a long dock to get deepwater access, because his lot was *already* provided deepwater access by the channel the subdivision developers had dredged for deepwater access, the channel that his long dock blocked.
@@andrewalexander9492 Nobody "needs" a dock at all. He has every right to build a long dock if that's what he wants, and he does it the right way and gets all the permits. It doesn't matter what he should have done. The only way he is in the wrong is if there is more to the story such as him not providing enough information when he applied for the permits. But if he did it the right way and got approved, the rest is irrelevant.
@@coolaid7005 ." The only way he is in the wrong is if there is more to the story such as him not providing enough information when he applied for the permits. " What a coincidence!!!! That's exactly what happened. No, seriously. that's what happened, and that's why his permit got rescinded. The channel in question is not just some random natural deeper spot in the lake-bed. It is a marked, manmade channel, put there expressly for giving deep draft boat access to the owners of the lots on the western canal of the subdivision. in 2003, when thte subdivision was being developed, the developers applied for a permit to dredge a boat channel, and after receiving that permit, dredged the channel. the boat channel was more than 6 feet deep, and 35 feet wide. This was not cheap. In 2017, Kent bought his lot, and told his neighbors he intended to build a dock out to open water. His neighbors, one of whom was one of the subdivision developers told home about the boat channel, and told him that he's be blocking his neighbor's boat access. He responded (and this is an actual quite from the Court document) "That's their problem, they can't stop me". So, Kent, thinking he couldn't be stopped, applied for a permit to build a dock. His permit application concealed the existence of the known (by Kent) boat channel. IN the information submitted was a lake bed profile, whcih showed the lake bad to be flat, smooth, and shallow, gradually and smoothly sloping out to deeper water ... whcih is a lie. There was a 6 foot deep, 35 ft wide boat channel that had been conveniently omitted from the lake bed profile along the dock. There's a lot more to the subsequent legal battle, of course, but that's one of the key elements was that the original permit was issued on the basis of a falsified permit. If you're interested, the court order contains a lot more of the story (which should have been reported in this story) floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
The dredging offer is more than fair and is a solid option. Being on the water a TON, I can tell you that this is A WIN for the guy complaining! It gives him a straight shot to deeper water AND insurers he can still get out in a drought! The other guy is an idiot if he doesn't accept the generous offer!
This video is so misleading. He knew his dock blocked the channel, built it out of compliance with the permit he got, which was approved due to his false and misleading application. He was told he could build it and instead made it bigger. He’s the one in the wrong. Dredging the area straight out would indeed be a good solution if feasible but him trying to play this like he’s the victim is a load of crap. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
@@will8anthony I'm not sure you understand how this works. The upkeep should be very minimal (nonexistent) if done correctly. Silting in will take forever!
I believe that the full story goes something like this... Home owner requests permit to build very big dock (2000 sqft) DEP grants permit to build a dock a smaller than requested (~1600 sqft) Home owner builds the dock he wanted to build in the first place Residents on the canal claim there was never notice of the original permit given so that they could protest it in the specified time frame, so they file a challenge In their investigation of this, DEP figures out the home owner build the dock he wanted instead of the one permitted DEP required the Home owner to apply for another permit for the dock as built A consent order was entered granting approval of the dock as built The canal residents filed a timely (shortly after consent order) motion challenging the consent order This went to the Administrative Law Judge who ruled that the burden was on the Home owner to prove that his dock would not interfere with safe navigation Since the Home owner can't do this, because it does apparently interfere, and therefore obviously did not do this before the permit was issued, there was a procedural flaw I do not feel bad for the Home owner, but there is plenty of blame to go around.
@@OutsiderLabs ah yeah the one that doesn't exist. here in reality he won per the court order LOL. some kids just never learn to follow facts instead of trolling.
The owner's comment about him paying $28 million is sales taxes is BS. His customers paid the sales tax, he did not. But that aside, once the permit is issued, the only way it can be revoked is if it was granted under false pretenses or there is a criminal issue involved. Unfortunately when the issuing agency makes an error such as this, the administrative courts will side with the state leaving the owner no choice but to sue the state - and they usually prevail.
The permit was issued under false premises. The permit application was falsified. It did not disclose the existenco of the known, man-made, marked boat channel that the proposed dock would block. Also, not directly related to blocking the subdivisions dredged acess channel, but somewhat relevant, he biult a much bigger dock than his permit allowed. The permit allowed a 160 ft long dock with one boat slip/lift, he built a 190 ft long dock with 3 slips. There was plenty of legal basis for rescinding his permit.
@@andrewalexander9492 And as is almost always the case, there is more to the story. A permit obtained with false statements is worthless. And then to have exceeded the limits of the permit - privilege strikes again, the rules do not apply to him . . . Thanks for filling in the backstory.
I was gonna say that the dock goes out too far, but that map that shows other houses with the same long docks, so I guess the homeowner is getting a bum deal.
I thought the same thing. He sounds like he wants the dock more than money to. I would think in a judgement he might win close to 200k to remove and build another dock. Unless there is something not being said in this article. He might have been permitted for a dock that extends 20ft out. Lol
@@houlester He lied on his permit applications and knew full well about the channel beforehand. There are links in comments here regarding it. The state is in the right.
1) Why did they issue a permit??? His dock is clearly interfering with the route. It was heading for trouble right from the start. 2) They issued a permit, he spent lots of money, and now they want him to tear it down? Not fair and is it even legal? 3) He offered to pay for the dredging, and it'll even be a shorter and safer route for the others. So where's the problem???
"1) Why did they issue a permit??? His dock is clearly interfering with the route." Kent's permit application concealed the existence of the channel whcih was known to him at the time he applied. the DEP should have discovered the existence of the channel, because permits had been issued for the dredging of the channel in 2003, and that permit is on the record they should have searched. So the blame falls on Kent and the DEP: Kent for lying on his application, and the DEP for not doing their due diligence and discovering his falsification. "2) They issued a permit, he spent lots of money, and now they want him to tear it down? Not fair and is it even legal?" Yes, a permit issued on the basis of a falsified application can be rescinded. Kent also built his dock substantially out of compliance with his permit (he applied to build a 160 ft dock with facilities for 1 boat, he built a 190 ft long dock with d=facilities for 3 boats) " 3) He offered to pay for the dredging, " Sure, he *said* that, informally, but I haven;t seen any evidence that him paying for the dredging of a new channel was ever formally offered as a part of a negotiated settlement to this conflict. You can't just start dredging tidelands, there's an extensive permitting process for any new dredging, and the dredging itself would be expansive. I suspect that a new channel would run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The video here only presents a small fraction of what really happened, and most of their information seems to have come from only Kent himself and is one sided and dishonest. There's a lot more information about what really happened in the Judges decision; floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
He didn't "pay" $28 million dollars in sales tax, he collected that tax from people who purchased his products and remitted that amount, minus collection allowance, to the state.
Seems to me that revoking permits for an already-constructed dock structure constitutes a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment and just compensation is due, at the very least. I mean, the dock's already been built. What permits are there to revoke?
This is the part I don't understand. I assume the permits were to build the dock. The dock was built, so the reason for the permits has expired. What does revoking the permits do now?
Nothing is being taken for the conversion to public use here so 5th amendment protections don't apply. In the original 2004 permits, the Army Corps of Engineers outlined specific limitations as they applied to any dock on lot #18, this owner. He was limited to only extending to the edge of the existing channel thus allowing access while not impeding the use for other property owners from the canal. he built beyond the scope of his plans and authority. He'll be tearing this down and may as well stop wasting money on fighting the case.
@@CGCampbellJr In this case, the dock has to have a permit to continue to exist. it's not exactly one single permit, there's several permits involved that involve different aspects of the dock. One is a "Letter of Consent" to use the state owned sovereignty submerged lands. What that mumbo-jumbo means is this: On Navigable bodies of water (Doctors Lake is a Navigible waterway) privately owned land ends at the waterline. Exactly what waterline is a whole other topic, but, in general terms, Kent's property ends at his shoreline. He does not own the lake bed underneath the lake out in front of his house lot, the State of Florida owns that land under the water. And if you want to build something on state land, you have to have permission to use state land. that's what the "Letter of Consent" is: permission to build and contain a dock on state submerged lands. If that permission is taken away, the dock can't remain there.
Funny how so many folks are commenting to support the guy. He did NOT have a permit for the dock he built. He violated the permit he was issued. No he crying "I pay taxes lot of taxes because I am rich and the law doesn't apply to me.
People are just plain stupid with these masks. I see people in their own vehicles by themselves wearing masks. People walking outside by themselves wearing masks. Just idiots.
@@strawsparky33 What ramifications? It's more or less just to mess with them. When they come back with their BS, just sue them. Court will over turn any local officials, irrationale. The guy could even sue them for wasting his time and get his dock paid for, and then some. Likely sue the neighbor for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
@@elgoog7830 The law is, put forth to protect waterways for everyone not just the one percent, is that you cannot block navigable zones. Whether or not they issued a permit, it is against maritime law. It is up to the home or land owner to recognize if this criteria is met. His lawsuit will waste tax dollars and go nowhere. This is how mainstream media works to make you weak and docile. They tell one side of the story, always benefiting the rich and then all you ConCucks and ShitLibs (you are one in the same), without critical thought, start pushing the agenda of the elitists....because one day you just know, you're going to be one of them lol. Look at all of you here on this comment thread, pushing to give the rich even more power after hearing two minutes of one side of the story. Pathetic.
That is a horrible and shameful way to extend property that should be held to a demand of less than 200 ft out into the right of way how does that make sense 200 ft out beyond your property line you have a doc 200 ft away from your property you have property how is that possible and are they paying taxes and how is it interfering with the main traffic not your neighbors traffic real traffic other traffic how about that turkey
I'm guessing that it's shallow near the shore and that the lake level changes. The other neighbors also have long docks. The boats might get grounded if they were shorter.
Uhhhhh way to leave out that this guy violated the permit? And that is why it must be taken down? I don't care how much you pay in taxes, you don't get to make up your own rules.
Copying comment for your attention. "Chele Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
So many whiners here who think they can watch a 2:21 news brief and know what they're talking about. (1) Dude lied on his permit, knowing that he was building into the navigable waterway. (2) He was told by the engineers that this wasn't a good idea and went ahead with it anyway. (3) Dredging is a temporary solution and one that would be fostered on the taxpayers. Yeah, the permit office probably should have a done better due diligence but their incompetence doesn't excuse his falsehoods. Tear that shit out.
Is there an update to this story anywhere? I'm curious what happened and what the result was, if there even is a result yet, now in 2022. I agree since they gave him the permits it's not right to demand it gets torn down after it's built however news never gives all the details even if they know all the details. It is blocking the canal. Perhaps there's a happy medium, I hope, such as the owner taking only some of it down. It doesn't look like it absolutely need to be as long as it is. That is one of the details this video fails to share; why the dock is as long as it is.
I don't know that there is an update published anywhere, but the dock has been torn down and Kent built a new dock and uses the boat channel that his mega-dock obstructed. Pictures of that new dock can be seen on his Facebook page, along with him continuing to lie about what transpired.
Wait a minute..there is something missing here..it has to be a low seasonal water issue correct. Why are the docks so long? how can a navigable waterway not have a navigable entrance into a lake??! As far as the dredging is concerned that can be a lengthy process..It would need, as im sure they know, an environmental impact statement drawn up, with an environmental consulting firm to fill in the blanks..Its more complicated then land excavating because u have less control of what happens after u dig the hole.. Money will NOT speed up the process..Permitting can take years depending on the sensitivity of the lake to disturbance..So whether or not he would get his money back on the dock, in court, whoknows; but it wont begoing back out that far if he wins..or the permitting wouldnt have been rescinded in the first place.. Some guy complaining didnt start this slip-n-slide, unless... something that had been overlooked for decades was resurected when the 85k dock guy, built the dock and the complainer pulled it out when he needed too..idk..YEA, I LIVED ON A STATE OWNED LAKE..!! SUCKERS!!
It does seem that those docks go way out which must infringe upon a good deal of public space. Still the dredging feels like a generous compromise after he got proper approval and made the investment, I wonder if such projects require a public hearing.
The reason for a long dock like that is due to depth issues, likely the Chanel he went over is only a few feet deep, allowing only a select type of vessel through, while in order to get your deep vhull in enough water to run it, is by extending the dock out to that point. It's a very very very common practice.
There’s a channel that goes in front of his lot and the lot to the north of him that provides access to the canal. It doesn’t go in front of the other lots with long docks. This was done in 2003. He bought the property in 2016 full knowing this. He was told before he built the dock it would obstruct the channel and wasn’t allowed. He ignored that and filed a misleading permit application that didn’t depict the channel. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
I agree that he should be allowed to leave the dock...BUT...he DID NOT pay 28 million in sales taxes. The public paid the taxes; he was just the transfer agent.
There's a reason this guy tried to win the argument in the media rather than in court. The facts are not as he stated them to be. He got permission to build a dock, but he didn't get permission to build the dock he built at the length he built it at. That makes all the difference. This was some half-assed reporting.
Ironically they have made their whole permit process not mean anything. Why would anyone pay and go through the hassle of getting permits if they can be approved twice just to later post construction be revoked lol. Imagine if this was a significantly more expensive project like in the millions. I hope he sues gets his dock paid for and it stays up, whiny neighbors annoy us all.
Which is what i should have been in the first place. He had no need to build across the boat channel to get to deeper water, because the boat channel was there specifically to provide deep water access to open water.
@@seaturtledog I'd say the city/county since they screwed up and approved the dock twice. The city can do two things to make this right. 1. Reimburse the citizen for the construction and removal cost of the dock THEY approved. 2. Let him pay for the initial dredging and they take it up thereafter. I say they do a cost analysis and choose the solution that impacts the tax payers least. I don't terribly care for either as the money comes from the tax payer, but I don't appreciate the government going after an individual after they gave him their blessing. Ultimately the officials should be held accountable for their part in this cluster.
More info here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf He knew what he was doing. Built a dock not in compliance with the permit he got, in violation of preexisting regulations, knowingly blocking channel access, and after he was told not to build it.
@@epia125 This story left out a bunch of info on how this guy was trying to be slick. He got a permit to build that went to the channel that didn't have to give notification to people with riparian rights to the channel. He then kept building across the channel and got an after-the-fact permit. Where he screwed up up was now the people had a 30 day window to contest the new permit and they did. When they contested it was discovered that the channel was owned by the state trust and he had no rights to build anything crossing it. All the judge did was revoke the second permit. He not only had to tear it down, he got hit with fines for building on state land without a valid lease.
You're going to need to continually dredge it. Not just once! And each big storm fills it all back in. I agree with the owner. My thoughts are that the state should pick up the continuous dredging bill, which I'm sure will go over like a lead balloon. Also, the neighbor is getting screwed.
Let's think why so long? Maybe the water depth near shore is not deep enough for a boat. Maybe it's a tide issue. Maybe there is a protected native aquatic life that close to shore. The aerial picture of the property shows all the neighbors have long docks.
Video literally said a neighbor complained about how his pier blocked his route to canal, if water is to shallow for boat then use a dry storage facility no excuse for cutting off 190 feet of public water with his money
When you purchase a waterfront home, there is no guarantee you will have or keep boat access, unless you are directly on a govt maintained channel. The neighbor should lose. It was nice that he offered a solution, but the neighbor should lose.
it's access from the canal not just one person. he lied on his permit in the first place and wouldn't have been able to block the waterway if he filed legitimately.
the channel was permitted and dredged by the Subdivision developers to provide deep water assess and the lots served by the channel were sold on the basis of having deep water access to the waterway, (which makes them more desirable and expensive than lots with no deep water access) and the rights to the dredged channel were transferred to the subdivision Owner's association. This wasn't just some naturally deep water, it was an actual permitted and dredged channel that was part of the subdivision infrastructure. It wasn't *a* neighbor, the asshole's dock cut off deep-water access to at least 6 other lots in the subdivision, although only 4 participated in the legal complaint.
The state should lose and made to dredge the canal for all the tax they make! It’s the state’s mistake, you can’t revoke a permit once the job is complete- the permit is null
@@stancrawford2147 Well, not true in this case. 1) the permit application contained false information. A permit issued on the basis of a falsified application can be recinded. 2) the dock ws built on state owned submerged lands. It’s not his property. He has to have a current use permit for the dock to continue to exist on state lands.
He did get screwed with the permit and the county should pay for dredging yet he offered. He was arrogant to say "I paid 28 million". A simple "I've paid my share of taxes and as a taxpayer I feel betrayed" would of been adequate.
@@Bozemanjustin It's as if the $28M was laying around and the business owner did nothing more than picking it up and mailing it to the tax authority. "I found the $28 million in a bucket and I wanted you to have it", said the business owner. "Didn't you work and takes risks and lots of personal time to attract customers, service those customers, then pay us a 'cut' of your income" said the taxing authority. "No, the $28 million was in a bucket and I wanted you to have it, I did nothing to make the money appear" said the business owner.
The state issued the permit, the dock was built in compliance. The state should have authority to revoke a permit BEFORE the dock was constructed if it received complaints, NOT after. In Ontario, Canada if you apply for a permit to construct something or redone something, the neighbouring properties must be notified in advance of the permit being granted. I am assuming that the neighbour had warning of this dock going in! I believe a better solution must be worked out, neighbours are becoming nightmares!
Unless the state issued the permit with incomplete information, for instance the dock builder not disclosing the design intersecting the navigation channel the allows adjacent property owners full use of the lake. This would be similar to building a cross fence on an established and legally protected easement on dry land. It's really impossible to understand all of the facts concerning this case from the brief news segment.
@@michaelduffee6402 Well, if you're interested in knowing more about what really went on here, the court decision has a a great deal of information about the real history, not the one sided and somewhat dishonest version being told by Kemp. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf Cliff's notes: Kemp absolutely knew that there was a preexisting, marked, permitted dredged boat channel running through there, and knew that his dock would block it. And he knew all this before he even applied for a permit, let alone started construction. Knowing that he would be screwing over his neighbors (He is quoted in the court document as saying "That's their problem, they can't stop me" ) he went ahead with it. His permit application concealed the existence of the known manmade boat channel, instead showing the lake bed there to be shallow and flat with no channel, whcih is false and was known by Kemp to be false.
so the dude is willing to pay to dredging bill and make a better route for everyone one and they still said no.... ridiculous what a waste of the tax payers dollars
But the permits were *NOT* denied. They were issued. If the permits were issued in error the the state needs to refund the money spent to build the dock. Unless the applicant lied on his permit application that is a different matter. But it doesn't sound like that is what happened.
He didn't abide by the permit, that's what happened. Look through some of the other comments, there are links to the court case and additional findings. The dude was trying to pull a fast one.
seeing this video is getting a lot of traction now... this lawsuit was my family versus 2 neighbors a few houses down. somehow with everyone on our side, we still lost this and had to remove our dock and replace it with one that doesn't really go out much at all. Some people really are just gum on a sidewalk to me... the Fuzzles and Shefflers
He got his permits and the channel access claimed by the neighbor isnt optimal I would imagine he has a very strong case and the neighbor can pay his own dredging costs screw him. *EDIT* ...Seems the guy built beyond the boundary of his permit if that is true he is screwed.
It doesn’t look any longer than the neighboring docks. His neighbor is well injected somehow. He must be to get a judge to intervene on his behalf. If I were the judge I’d be like quit throwing a little bitch fit and take the dredging offer.
This guy is very nice and is in the right 100%. His neighbor shouldn't of gone behind his back about the dock and just asked to come up with a solution
This guy is a freaking lying sack. He submitted false information on the permit applications, rendering them invalid. He went behind his neighbors backs by not posting the permit notice and building the dock without allowing them a chance to challenge the permits before they were issued, as a result they challenged them within the 30 days of completion, as legally required. They won because of the false applications and the dock that he built exceeding the permit was just a bonus. He lost his $85k he spent on that dock, had to pay to remove it, then had to get a permit to build one that didn't block the existing public access channel. Perhaps, if he was "a nice guy" he wouldn't have been out over 100k but when you think you can do whatever you want because your rich, you get to pay higher penalties.
Copying comment for your attention. "Chele Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
You can if the permits were issued on the basis of false information in the application. This guy's permit application had falsified information. Boom, permit rescinded ....
He didn’t, he could have built a dock on his shoreline and used the dredged channel. Thats why the subdivision developers spent a lot of money permitting and dredging the channel; to provide deepwater access to his lot, and at least 6 neighboring lots. He eventually lost this fight (video is 2 years old) and tore down the mega-dock, and built a dock at his shoreline and uses the channel that his mega dock blocked.
He's already had due process. Read his case. He lied on the permits and then built the dock outside of the parameters of the permits. He lost as he should have.
@@STScott-qo4pw lazy reporting. First off it was not the state that revoked the permits it was a judge . 4 of his neighbors sued him and the state agency
@@STScott-qo4pw it's not clear in the video however he's already had a hearing and he lied on his application for a permit. That's how he received a permit and then he didn't fulfill the permit as it was intended. You can Google his name and the county and you'll see the court case.
This guys says he has paid $28M in sales taxes to the state of Florida. I believe he has collected $28M in sales taxes for the state of Florida. The taxes were paid by his customers. In any event that doesn't entitle him to anything. I suspect that there is language in the permit that states it can be revoked or rescinded by the state of Florida. Kind of risky to pay $85K for something for which there is no guarantee of permanence.
I am on his side. Once permits are issued and the work is done, the homeowner shouldn't take a loss due to a mistake or change of heart on the part of the city/state.
Unless he violated the permits that were issued. This reporter did a terrible job only reporting exactly what this one person told and showed him without researching what the permits actually allowed and without looking up the route of the channel that effectively is the end of the canal into the main river channel.
@@h_in_oh That's a dude.
Worst case the state/DEP should pay the citizens costs for the dock, including the demolition and/or relocation costs.
Best case the DEP pays for the dredging since it may have been their error in the first place.
Did he build it to the exact specification of the permits? Is his college buddy in charge of the department that issues permits? Regardless, it looks like he can afford it, times are tough all over. Yes, he paid 28M in taxes, but he also profited personally from the income that paid those taxes.
It is a monstrousity--190 feet long? Absolutely zero purpose, except for maybe vanity or overcompensation.
@@stevelibby6852 Libby. Appropriate name. The State works for the tax payer not the other way around. This guy’s success helps pay for things the community as a whole enjoys. There is no reason to diminish his success and assume it is okay for him to pay for a dock removal simply because he can afford it.
Surmising his college buddy got him the permit is childish thinking not backed up by proof.
The dock matches his surrounding neighbors. I would say the length is because the depth near shore is shallow and the dock length gets them to deep water. Extremely common and written into the permit.
Im impressed he’s willing to do the dredging. Seems like a reasonable guy.
Or he's an asshole who's hoping for a cheaper solution to a problem that he created himself. There was already a channel that made his long dock unnecessary, but he filed a permit application that (probably fraudulently) didn't disclose that.
@@suedenim9208 The state gave him the permit, the neighbors knew this as all neighbors are notified that dock construction has been applied for and then have the chance to say something, not after it's finished. Not his fault neighbors ignored notice.
@@suedenim9208 so, both permits he applied for were fraudulent.....but the news didn't include that in the report??? LOL
If they were "bad permits", the Dr. would have no case.
You're a fool.....and a jealous one at that. LOL
@@suedenim9208 To get a permit you have a posted hearing, where was the the dickhead Monday morning quarterback then? If Dredging a new channel is doable what is the problem? You would have to occasionally dredge the old channel to keep it open anyway. No pun intended but something is very FISHY about this story. I agree with another poster the Government is sucking the life blood out of this country. Evidently whiners rule the day.
@@suedenim9208 Not to mention the intellectual dishonesty of implying that dredging is a permanent solution. A "solution" that's "good enough for now" (for problems with a permanent fixture) to make rich owners happy, then it gets forgotten over the years and no one considers themselves responsible, is how we got the Johnstown flood that killed 2200 people.
The fact that he's willing to pay for the dredging himself go's to show he's genuinely trying to finds a reasonable solution. Hope things work out for this guy.
He's willing to pay for it because he is in the wrong. He built his dock over the channel.
@@miamiwax5504: This isn’t rocket science. The dock was built after the permits had been issued. If anyone is in the wrong it’s the agency who issued the permits!!
Plus why the hell does the canal channel make 2 90 degrees turns to run in front of his house. It should have been a straight shot to begin with.
At least an option to dredge was offered. Many rivers in WA and other states cannot be dredged at all.
This is illogical. Every home has a comparable dock. The homes using the canal should pay to dredge the straight line to the lake. That is the reasonable solution.
What about the fact that the dock he had built was both longer and larger than the permit approved? Should he be given an exception because he's rich and believes that alone allows him to ignore everyone around him and do what he wants?
@@nobodyspecial4702 That was not stated in the video. His neighbors' docks are longer than his. He stated he is even willing to pay the dredging cost. This is messed up!
Exactly!
@@jbhcrazyskills9508 Because he's only giving the information he wants. The full story makes it perfectly clear this guy is a lying sack. He knew his dock was blocking the public access and exceeding the permit allowances, which he only got by falsifying the applications and insists that because he's rich he should get away with it.
@@nobodyspecial4702 so where are your sources? Nothing you said was in the video, so when you say stuff like that, you need yo present your sources. Nobody is going to take your word for it.
Rich people problems, but I side with the homeowner. I'm just sick and tired of whiny neighbors complaining and getting people in trouble.
This isn’t ‘rich people problems’ this is a goverment scamming someone into paying for two permits just to magically deny them because they feel like it.
How long till they do that to your drivers license?
Rich people suing the state is how BS regulatory crap like this is removed for all of us. Thanks, rich guy!
Who cares if he’s rich. This shit happens to poor people as well who own there own land and trying to get by, by building tiny home.
I am with the homeowner here. I hope if he sues the state, the question of why the permits were issued in the first place is investigated. One would think the permit office would consider the impact a new lakeside structure would have on navigation before issuing a permit. The fact that this was neglected, and that they are only taking an action on it because another homeowner complained, is altogether disgracefully.
edit: After reading the court case my opinion has changed. Things are not as the news made it seem. see below.
Can't win. Can't permit blockage of navigation
@@teevee2145 Depends how you define "win". If he can prove that government incompetency granted him a permit for which a permit should never have been permitted, than he could be deserving of compensation for damages. I'm sure a lawyer could phrase it better. Like you said, the state can't permit blockage of navigation. So why was that granted to him?
@@potblack6043 it would be cheaper to tear it out. I just argued a case like this in appeal. The guy must file quickly under an admin procedure act. Will be very short then be barred. The courts protect bureaucratic incompetence for sure
He better have lots I money and have a studious lawyer
@@teevee2145 The guy owns a lakefront house in Florida. He dropped 85 thousand dollars to have a new dock installed, then when the issue of navigation was brought up, offered to pay out of pocket to have a new channel dredged. I am sure he has the money and will for a case.
As a contractor I've had a permit issued and the inspector dening use of materials before we started. This dock had an inspector check the progress of the dock and signed it off. His only recourse is sue the state or pay thousands in attorney fees.
Whose responsibility is it to file a complete and accurate permit, and what happens if you file a permit application with false or incorrect information that isn't caught right away? Are you stupid enough to think that if you include an inaccurate survey you won't have to correct the problem if you've violated a setback requirement or even built on a neighbor's property?
@@suedenim9208 hey dodo 🦤 . Material requirements change from one city to the next. All cities are not on the same page. You sound like an angry over weight wife.
@@suedenim9208 you must be one of his neighbors that ignored the notices sent out about the permits being issued. Quit crying.
@@reader3769 The very first thing the court pointed out was that he never posted the permit notice. The second thing they pointed out was that the dock he had built exceeded even what the permit allowed. The third was that his permits were invalid because he submitted false information on them. The fourth was that being rich doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Copying comment for your attention.
"Chele
Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
I’m with the man. It seems he’s done everything right and is will to pay to accommodate the problem. If he sues, I hope he takes them for everything+.
He did NOT do "everything right". He was informed of the channel well beforehand and should have included that in his permit application.
Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent of the existence of the permitted boat
access channel that provided navigational access to residents of the western
canal to Doctors Lake, a statement heard by Lt. Commander Van Hook. The
conversation was memorable because Mr. Goria stated his belief that
Mr. Kent was fortunate that his boat lift was going to be right on his
bulkhead, which would save him considerable money on having to build a
dock. When Mr. Kent expressed surprise, Mr. Goria explained that we
dredged a channel for the canal lot owners that goes and meanders right
along your bulkhead and then goes out between you and [lot] 17. Mr. Kent
stated that he wanted a big dock, 4 to which Mr. Goria stated that he would be
blocking the channel near his bulkhead used by the canal front owners.
Mr. Goria testified that Mr. Kent then stated that well, that's their problem.
They can't stop me.
39. Lt. Commander Van Hook testified, credibly and without reservation,
that Mr. Goria made it 100 percent clear on a two - way dialogue that without
a doubt, there's a boat access channel that runs along the bulkhead that provides access from the folks that live back on the canal, the petitioners.
access to the deeper waters out in Doctors Lake. He testified to his
recollection of the conversation that I know [ Mr. Goria] said [the channel]
ran parallel to the bulkhead that gets out there so parallel to the Romeo Point bulkhead. So if that puts it u p against your lot, depending on how far it
goes out there, I just know that it ran parallel. I don't know how far off. He
then stated that Mr. Kent s only response pretty much was he's going to
apply either way. His plans were to build an extended dock. When asked if it
was reasonable for one to conclude that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the
4 Mr. Kent s desire to have a big dock on Lot 18 was not new. As he testified at hearing, I
mean, hey, it's everybody's dream to live on the water. But for this particular area, I mean,
come on. Who wouldn't walk up to [Lot 18] and want a boat dock. I wanted a boat dock
before I bought it.
boat access channel as a result of the conversation, Lt. Commander Van Hook
replied , Yes, sir, without a doubt.
What kills me is the route that the person claiming an obstruction to navigation is taking. I mean it's so close to shore that this guy wouldn't even be able to really have a dock at all. If he has an issue with the new dock obstructing him... Why is there no issue with the dock to the port side exiting the canal? Looking at this graphic... All of the docks are comparable in length... Some are even longer.
He in fact knew about the channel in front of his lot that provides access to the canal prior to building the dock. He knew he was only authorized a shore side dock and could not block the channel. The route straight in isn’t pasable at low tide. The permit application he submitted was inaccurate and misleading. He further build the dock out of compliance with the permit he has, making it 33 feet longer and having three slips and floating dock for a PWC that wasn’t allowed. The second permit he got was an after the fact permit due to his dock not complying with the first permit.
Read about it here.
floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
When the subdivision was created, before the houses were built, the channel was permitted and dredged there to provide deep water access to the lots on the canal *and* lot 18, whcih is where the dock guy lives. He could have built a dock out from his land whcih would have allowed him to have a boat and also use that channel for access. There is in fact, sufficient room for him to have built a dock between his shoreline and the channel. He knew all this, know that the dredged channel was there, and knew that his dock would block the dredged channel.
@@andrewalexander9492 then WHY did they grant permit #1?
@@dopeytripod What kills me is that I work 50 hours a week minimum,save,and invest for the last 35 years to get ahead and millions of people watch tv and smoke weed all day
@@AAAskeet The agency granting the permit did a lousy job. The application for the permit for the dock concealed the known ( by the homeowner) existence of the dredged channel, but the agency didn’t do their due diligence otherwise they would have found the existing permit for the channel and recognized the conflict. There’s blame to go around.
Seems like he made a GREAT offer. A nice straight line to the lake is really NICE.
sure he will pay for the first dredging, how about the next time who going to be responsible for it
@@will8anthony
Who cares?
He already had two permits that were okayed by the state.
It's their problem now.
he knew about the channel, was warned he couldn't shouldn't build there and still did. his fault... floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf page 19-20 get into details. (hijacking top comment)
@@craftsoda * And the state, which issued the 2 permits, didn't know about the channel, or the problems that could result from the building of that dock? Who is in charge of issuing these permits, the Biden administration?
@@TrulyUnfortunate well he lied on the permit plans
$28,000 for anything with the word “dredging” in it is pretty reasonable.
for small projects it takes a day or two in an excavator on a small barge to do that. it gets expensive when u use dredging vessels
I'm skeptical that he got a real, no BS quite from a competent marine contractor to handle the permitting for a new boat channel, and dredging the new channel to the same dimensions of the previously dredged channel that hid dock blocked. (35 ft wide and more than 6 feet deep. ) for $ 28,000 I think that's some BS number he's throwing around.
this is ridiculous. If they didn't want him to build the dock, they should've denied the permit before it was built. This is why giving government this kind of power is dangerous.
What’s Dangerous About Building A Dock!?!?!?
@@Ivansky1 I think you completely missed the point
Wouldn't matter, the dock he had built was larger and longer than the permit allowed, so that alone is reason enough to make him remove it.
@@nobodyspecial4702 Yes I read that as well but they conveniently left that part out
Copying comment for your attention.
"Chele
Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
Issue permits to build something then, after it is built say you cannot have it, tear it down? Stop talking to them, get a lawyer to do it for you.
He would lose since he lied on his permit applications knowing full well about the channel prior
@@DogManDan It's not his responsibility. It's the city's.
@@joshbrobud8358 No, when you falsify your permit information, it's your responsibility and the city will win in court, which they did.
Copying comment for your attention.
"Chele
Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
@@joshbrobud8358 The city's ... lol, wrong!
If you have a great solution to fix a problem while dealing with the state you can know the state will F it UP for everyone including themselves.
hard to tell if it's incompetence or just plain evil incarnate.
@@MrHellfinger I'd say lazy but more likely evil incarnate via power trip.
Funny how so many folks are commenting to support the guy. He did NOT have a permit for the dock he built. He violated the permit he was issued. No he crying "I pay taxes lot of taxes because I am rich and the law doesn't apply to me.
@@jasonmcmillan6598 didn't the state issue 2 permits? If this reporting is false...can you link us to the real one?
@@DJUwU There was no follow up news report. As far as I can tell, he involved the news because the case went south for him. He wanted to turn public opinion in his favor.
Wasn't it his business's *customers* that paid 28 million in sales tax??
you are correct
And how did he get the stuff to sell? Probally from a wholesaller who he had to pay sales tax.
@@Talbottechify Sales tax is generally not paid at the wholesale level. Only the "end user" pays.
Hope all these problems and challenges aren’t too much for the poor fella! God bless! Amen
Wouldn't use the word "poor". I own homes in 2 states, boats, cars, a camper and atvs, and his illegally built dock is worth more than all of it lmao.
Would like an update
read pages 19-10 for pertinent details and where the home owner knew he was going over a previously permitted channel. seems he lost. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf page 19-20 get into details.
Hope he wins this case, the state is just wrong, they owe him now for lost time, turmoil, and reneging on the permits.
How about reading some of the comments where it is clearly referencing the documents showing the owner knew about the channel and was lying on his permits. The state is in the right, the owner is in the wrong, and the reporter did not due the proper investigating to report this.
@@DogManDan I think we found the neighbor!!! LMAO
I doubt that very seriously. If the man knew there was a channel in front of his house and it ran the same direction of his dock, then there would have been no need to build a dock that long in order to get his boat house in deep enough water to get his boat in and out of the lift. It would have been considerably less expensive to build the boat house right off of his sea wall.
@@ralfie8801 He could in fact have build a small dock off his sea wall. and in fact that is what he did after he tore down the long dock. If you go to his Facebook page, he has pictures of his new dock. The history is pretty well laid out in the court decision: The developers of the subdivision got a permit for, and dredged a 35 ft wide 6+ ft deep channel to provide deep draft access to not only the homeowners on the canal, but also to Dockman's lot and his next door neighbor. They also placed channel markers there to mark the location of the channel. That all happened long before he bought his lot and built his house. When he told his neighbors about his planes to build a long dock, he was informed of the channel by the neighbors, one of whcih was one of he developers of the subdivision, and it was pointed out to him that he would be blocking the access for his neighbors. He said "That's their problem" This all took place before he applied for the permit. His permit application concealed the existence of the channel, whcih was unquestionably known to him. His application contained a lake bed profile showing it to be shallow, flat and gradually sloping out form shore to the deeper part of the lake. It did not show the 6' deep boat channel whcih he knew existed. If his application had shown that he was building his dock across an established permitted and dredged boat channel, it would likely have been denied. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf Additionally he got a permit for a 160 ft dock, and built his dock 190 feet long. He got a permit for a dock with a single slip, and the dock he built had 3 slips. There was also a specified height off the water that he wasn't in compliance with. Those details aren't directly related to the blocking of the channel, but they serve to illustrate what sort of a guy this is. Bottom line is that he had no need to build 190 FT LONG DOCK TO GET TO DEEP WATER, BECAUSE HE *already* had deep water boat access via the dredged channel, he knew the channel was there, and he he knew he was blocking it, and his application contained false information that concealed the known channel. That's why he got his permits revoked. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
@@andrewalexander9492
Then why didn’t you say that before? Instead we just got basically he did it out of spite. I certainly wouldn’t have built a dock that long unless I absolutely had to, thus my original statement.
On the other hand from one of the drawings I saw, why would the original dredged channel come out of the canal and then turn to follow the shoreline in front of his property and turn again to go out instead of just going straight out of the canal to deeper water?
Edit: I didn’t notice you weren’t the original commenter that didn’t explain until now, sorry.
I need to ask: Did the state offer just compensation or have they simply told the guy to take the loss? If the state did not offer just compensation, then the state should take a walk off his lovely dock.
Funny how so many folks are commenting to support the guy. He did NOT have a permit for the dock he built. He violated the permit he was issued. No he crying "I pay taxes lot of taxes because I am rich and the law doesn't apply to me.
@@jasonmcmillan6598 Sounds like he didn't have a permit he had two. Funny I had the exact opposite reaction. I am surprised that people are siding with the government, evidently because the guy is successful.
@@jasonmcmillan6598he didn't have a permit? Where are you getting that from?
@@HolyEyeWasHere he did not have a permit for what he built. He got a permit and then built it larger and in a different location than his permit- AKA he committed fraud
@@jasonmcmillan6598do you have a link?
In my town the city gave permits to build homes in an area that was unstable and when the ground shifted the homes were deemed uninhabitable.the city said oops and that was all.
Areas with unstable soil can be built on if the contractor takes the time and expense to hire an engineer who will ensure the foundation work is adequate. Sounds like the builders cut corners and the consumers didn't take the time to evaluate their investment.
A Permit doesn’t guarantee the quality of a builders work. It’s simply guarantees that it’s an appropriate place for the building and that the general design is it acceptable to the community.
Sue them! You can’t pull a permit after you’ve approved it and project is done. That’s ridiculous! All this because one person complained about his kayak? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
LOL
His permit was for a specific length, he built past that length. Get a permit for a 2 story house, then build a 3 story house. You will have to tear the whole house down.
There are links to the rest of the story in several other comments. Apparently, the guy was trying to pull a fast one on the state and on his neighbors and got caught. Filed false info in the application to get a permit, then violated/exceeded the terms of the permit. Counted on his "elite status" to get his way and break the laws. He lost, apparently.
You can if you do not follow the permit to the letter.
Yes you can
I’d like to hear the rest of the story, because we’re only being told half of it
If you watched the video and paid attention they tell all three sides. Watch it again there guy.
@@james-ub6cc is your wife boning her boyfriend and got her panties you wear in a bunch?
It would be nice if there were an update now that it has been almost 2 years since this was published.
@@james-ub6cc nah he lied on the permits and did not build the dock he said he was going to build.
@@killer809829 Really? I'd like to hear that part.
Sounded crazy until you read that the dock was permitted a length of 160ft and he built it 190ft...into the canal/channel so he could dock a bigger boat.
20-000614 Mark Sheffler, Michael Davis, Steven Fuzzell, And Mitchell Ergle vs. Andrew Kent...
God bless you brother that's crazy!
If he holds the approved paperwork the state has no recourse but to back off.
Actually, the state can revoked the paperwork, just as they can revoked and permit or license at any time for any reason.
The dock is in public water.
@@rayh592 Thats not how it works. They didnt consider a permit and deny him. They approved and granted him the permit. The state cant just change the mind after someone builds. This is an easy win for him in court.
@@TheNichq actually they can when it supposedly hinders travel for others. Not that I agree with it but this is how the system is setup to work.
Everyone who commented please list your education and accolades please and thank you
Ahh, no. The neighbour can prove in court the state had made a mistake. The state should tear it down and pay all the bills.
Dock owner seems like an entilted nob.
Charging him $85000 for that dock is the real crime
Yeah that's a $3000 dock maximum
not really, if it was just finished, your looking at 30k in wood, 16k in new boat lifts, plus the roof structure. after labor, which will be high probably a few grand profit.
@@nagel133 don't forget the barge and piledriver for the pilings
@@garagekeys LOL.... now that's funny
@@mikenorris4966 OMG you too funny
Why on earth does the dock have to be 190 feet long if the deep water channel passes right in front of his property?
After research more into the topic. I side with the town on this one. The reasoning is that yes he did get the permit which was approved by town. He did not follow the guidelines of the permit which is his fault. The home owner is in the wrong.
There is always an appeal court, no matter who or what is the problem. Don't like the action against you, you can appeal that decision.
County/State Agencies have their own lawyers and judges. Yes, you can file an appeal within an agency, but only to a certain level. Beyond that, I'm not sure, except that civil courts don't want to be inundated with cases. Civil courts are backed-up as it is. Yes, you can have an attorney represent your case in an agency law matter (L&I, SS, etc.). If I was a juror in this case, I would rule against the county in this matter. I would also award punitive damages to cover the homeowner's legal costs.
He lost. He tore down his dock, and built a dock on his shoreline whcih uses the dredged channel for deep water access. That's what he should have done in the first place. He had no need of a long dock to get deepwater access, because his lot was *already* provided deepwater access by the channel the subdivision developers had dredged for deepwater access, the channel that his long dock blocked.
@@andrewalexander9492 I didn't understand why he paid for a long dock when there was deep water right there...
@@andrewalexander9492 Nobody "needs" a dock at all. He has every right to build a long dock if that's what he wants, and he does it the right way and gets all the permits. It doesn't matter what he should have done. The only way he is in the wrong is if there is more to the story such as him not providing enough information when he applied for the permits. But if he did it the right way and got approved, the rest is irrelevant.
@@coolaid7005 ." The only way he is in the wrong is if there is more to the story such as him not providing enough information when he applied for the permits. "
What a coincidence!!!! That's exactly what happened. No, seriously. that's what happened, and that's why his permit got rescinded. The channel in question is not just some random natural deeper spot in the lake-bed. It is a marked, manmade channel, put there expressly for giving deep draft boat access to the owners of the lots on the western canal of the subdivision. in 2003, when thte subdivision was being developed, the developers applied for a permit to dredge a boat channel, and after receiving that permit, dredged the channel. the boat channel was more than 6 feet deep, and 35 feet wide. This was not cheap. In 2017, Kent bought his lot, and told his neighbors he intended to build a dock out to open water. His neighbors, one of whom was one of the subdivision developers told home about the boat channel, and told him that he's be blocking his neighbor's boat access. He responded (and this is an actual quite from the Court document) "That's their problem, they can't stop me". So, Kent, thinking he couldn't be stopped, applied for a permit to build a dock. His permit application concealed the existence of the known (by Kent) boat channel. IN the information submitted was a lake bed profile, whcih showed the lake bad to be flat, smooth, and shallow, gradually and smoothly sloping out to deeper water ... whcih is a lie. There was a 6 foot deep, 35 ft wide boat channel that had been conveniently omitted from the lake bed profile along the dock. There's a lot more to the subsequent legal battle, of course, but that's one of the key elements was that the original permit was issued on the basis of a falsified permit. If you're interested, the court order contains a lot more of the story (which should have been reported in this story) floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
The dredging offer is more than fair and is a solid option. Being on the water a TON, I can tell you that this is A WIN for the guy complaining! It gives him a straight shot to deeper water AND insurers he can still get out in a drought! The other guy is an idiot if he doesn't accept the generous offer!
It's a neighbor dispute, there is no resolution for unhappy neighbors.
@@s0nnyburnett True...no common sense allowed.
This video is so misleading. He knew his dock blocked the channel, built it out of compliance with the permit he got, which was approved due to his false and misleading application. He was told he could build it and instead made it bigger. He’s the one in the wrong.
Dredging the area straight out would indeed be a good solution if feasible but him trying to play this like he’s the victim is a load of crap.
floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
who will pay for the next dredging, and up keep. will he pay for it for ever
@@will8anthony I'm not sure you understand how this works. The upkeep should be very minimal (nonexistent) if done correctly. Silting in will take forever!
I believe that the full story goes something like this...
Home owner requests permit to build very big dock (2000 sqft)
DEP grants permit to build a dock a smaller than requested (~1600 sqft)
Home owner builds the dock he wanted to build in the first place
Residents on the canal claim there was never notice of the original permit given so that they could protest it in the specified time frame, so they file a challenge
In their investigation of this, DEP figures out the home owner build the dock he wanted instead of the one permitted
DEP required the Home owner to apply for another permit for the dock as built
A consent order was entered granting approval of the dock as built
The canal residents filed a timely (shortly after consent order) motion challenging the consent order
This went to the Administrative Law Judge who ruled that the burden was on the Home owner to prove that his dock would not interfere with safe navigation
Since the Home owner can't do this, because it does apparently interfere, and therefore obviously did not do this before the permit was issued, there was a procedural flaw
I do not feel bad for the Home owner, but there is plenty of blame to go around.
So he's a douche
I’d say 99.5% is on the homeowner.
incorrect but was a decent effort at trying to side with the neighbors and state. This guy won his case and kept the dock. So the jokes on them lol.
@@thereal-ghostStop lying mate. He tore it down because he lost. It's all in the court documents you didn't read
@@OutsiderLabs ah yeah the one that doesn't exist. here in reality he won per the court order LOL. some kids just never learn to follow facts instead of trolling.
The owner's comment about him paying $28 million is sales taxes is BS. His customers paid the sales tax, he did not. But that aside, once the permit is issued, the only way it can be revoked is if it was granted under false pretenses or there is a criminal issue involved. Unfortunately when the issuing agency makes an error such as this, the administrative courts will side with the state leaving the owner no choice but to sue the state - and they usually prevail.
The permit was issued under false premises. The permit application was falsified. It did not disclose the existenco of the known, man-made, marked boat channel that the proposed dock would block. Also, not directly related to blocking the subdivisions dredged acess channel, but somewhat relevant, he biult a much bigger dock than his permit allowed. The permit allowed a 160 ft long dock with one boat slip/lift, he built a 190 ft long dock with 3 slips. There was plenty of legal basis for rescinding his permit.
@@andrewalexander9492 And as is almost always the case, there is more to the story. A permit obtained with false statements is worthless. And then to have exceeded the limits of the permit - privilege strikes again, the rules do not apply to him . . . Thanks for filling in the backstory.
Thank god for nameless government bureaucrats
I was gonna say that the dock goes out too far, but that map that shows other houses with the same long docks, so I guess the homeowner is getting a bum deal.
I thought the same thing. He sounds like he wants the dock more than money to. I would think in a judgement he might win close to 200k to remove and build another dock. Unless there is something not being said in this article. He might have been permitted for a dock that extends 20ft out. Lol
@@houlester He lied on his permit applications and knew full well about the channel beforehand. There are links in comments here regarding it. The state is in the right.
they are so long because everyone needs to use the channel he is blocking. it might dry up to that point
1) Why did they issue a permit??? His dock is clearly interfering with the route. It was heading for trouble right from the start.
2) They issued a permit, he spent lots of money, and now they want him to tear it down? Not fair and is it even legal?
3) He offered to pay for the dredging, and it'll even be a shorter and safer route for the others. So where's the problem???
Money... they want more of his
"1) Why did they issue a permit??? His dock is clearly interfering with the route."
Kent's permit application concealed the existence of the channel whcih was known to him at the time he applied. the DEP should have discovered the existence of the channel, because permits had been issued for the dredging of the channel in 2003, and that permit is on the record they should have searched. So the blame falls on Kent and the DEP: Kent for lying on his application, and the DEP for not doing their due diligence and discovering his falsification.
"2) They issued a permit, he spent lots of money, and now they want him to tear it down? Not fair and is it even legal?"
Yes, a permit issued on the basis of a falsified application can be rescinded. Kent also built his dock substantially out of compliance with his permit (he applied to build a 160 ft dock with facilities for 1 boat, he built a 190 ft long dock with d=facilities for 3 boats)
" 3) He offered to pay for the dredging, "
Sure, he *said* that, informally, but I haven;t seen any evidence that him paying for the dredging of a new channel was ever formally offered as a part of a negotiated settlement to this conflict. You can't just start dredging tidelands, there's an extensive permitting process for any new dredging, and the dredging itself would be expansive. I suspect that a new channel would run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The video here only presents a small fraction of what really happened, and most of their information seems to have come from only Kent himself and is one sided and dishonest. There's a lot more information about what really happened in the Judges decision; floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
He didn't "pay" $28 million dollars in sales tax, he collected that tax from people who purchased his products and remitted that amount, minus collection allowance, to the state.
Seems to me that revoking permits for an already-constructed dock structure constitutes a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment and just compensation is due, at the very least.
I mean, the dock's already been built. What permits are there to revoke?
This is the part I don't understand. I assume the permits were to build the dock. The dock was built, so the reason for the permits has expired. What does revoking the permits do now?
Nothing is being taken for the conversion to public use here so 5th amendment protections don't apply. In the original 2004 permits, the Army Corps of Engineers outlined specific limitations as they applied to any dock on lot #18, this owner. He was limited to only extending to the edge of the existing channel thus allowing access while not impeding the use for other property owners from the canal. he built beyond the scope of his plans and authority. He'll be tearing this down and may as well stop wasting money on fighting the case.
@@CGCampbellJr In this case, the dock has to have a permit to continue to exist. it's not exactly one single permit, there's several permits involved that involve different aspects of the dock. One is a "Letter of Consent" to use the state owned sovereignty submerged lands. What that mumbo-jumbo means is this: On Navigable bodies of water (Doctors Lake is a Navigible waterway) privately owned land ends at the waterline. Exactly what waterline is a whole other topic, but, in general terms, Kent's property ends at his shoreline. He does not own the lake bed underneath the lake out in front of his house lot, the State of Florida owns that land under the water. And if you want to build something on state land, you have to have permission to use state land. that's what the "Letter of Consent" is: permission to build and contain a dock on state submerged lands. If that permission is taken away, the dock can't remain there.
Funny how so many folks are commenting to support the guy. He did NOT have a permit for the dock he built. He violated the permit he was issued. No he crying "I pay taxes lot of taxes because I am rich and the law doesn't apply to me.
DEP needs to refund his money!
The courts are beholden to the state. Wish him the best of luck.
It's like homeowners who buy a house but place parking cones outside on public streets so people cant park.
I wonder if Ken is still wearing a mask, outside, with nobody near him.
Because it was Nov 2020 and they did that then….. ya know fear mongering.
Mask outside on a dock
People are just plain stupid with these masks.
I see people in their own vehicles by themselves wearing masks.
People walking outside by themselves wearing masks.
Just idiots.
@@dennismhac23 1 million dead Americans from covid. Guess you haven't heard.
@@liveoakgap7489 I guess you're one of them(people who are stupid w/these masks). LMAOOOOO
@@dennismhac23 too much whiskey is shrinking your brain.
Yeah you can get it from the air specially when the wind is blowing 20 knt
Home owners that had dock built, should just tell the special government, "it's always been there. I just wanted to do minor improvements to it."
And then deal with the legal ramifications of lying after they dig through the paperwork. The state will do anything to screw people out of money.
@@strawsparky33
What ramifications? It's more or less just to mess with them. When they come back with their BS, just sue them. Court will over turn any local officials, irrationale.
The guy could even sue them for wasting his time and get his dock paid for, and then some. Likely sue the neighbor for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
@@elgoog7830 The law is, put forth to protect waterways for everyone not just the one percent, is that you cannot block navigable zones. Whether or not they issued a permit, it is against maritime law. It is up to the home or land owner to recognize if this criteria is met. His lawsuit will waste tax dollars and go nowhere.
This is how mainstream media works to make you weak and docile. They tell one side of the story, always benefiting the rich and then all you ConCucks and ShitLibs (you are one in the same), without critical thought, start pushing the agenda of the elitists....because one day you just know, you're going to be one of them lol. Look at all of you here on this comment thread, pushing to give the rich even more power after hearing two minutes of one side of the story. Pathetic.
@@elgoog7830 Ah, another keyboard lawyer
@@snakeoo7ca
Good job breaking it down, why I'm wrong.
I guess you somehow know, that judges magically can't over rule local officials.
Taking of property requires compensation.
That is a horrible and shameful way to extend property that should be held to a demand of less than 200 ft out into the right of way how does that make sense 200 ft out beyond your property line you have a doc 200 ft away from your property you have property how is that possible and are they paying taxes and how is it interfering with the main traffic not your neighbors traffic real traffic other traffic how about that turkey
I'm guessing that it's shallow near the shore and that the lake level changes. The other neighbors also have long docks. The boats might get grounded if they were shorter.
Is the land under the water navigable or non-navigable?
I would LOVE to see a follow up story to this.
Uhhhhh way to leave out that this guy violated the permit? And that is why it must be taken down?
I don't care how much you pay in taxes, you don't get to make up your own rules.
Looks like the government did not do its homework AGAIN! They should pay to either shorten dock or tear it down plus reimburse owner for costs!
Copying comment for your attention.
"Chele
Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
So many whiners here who think they can watch a 2:21 news brief and know what they're talking about.
(1) Dude lied on his permit, knowing that he was building into the navigable waterway.
(2) He was told by the engineers that this wasn't a good idea and went ahead with it anyway.
(3) Dredging is a temporary solution and one that would be fostered on the taxpayers.
Yeah, the permit office probably should have a done better due diligence but their incompetence doesn't excuse his falsehoods. Tear that shit out.
Is there an update to this story anywhere? I'm curious what happened and what the result was, if there even is a result yet, now in 2022. I agree since they gave him the permits it's not right to demand it gets torn down after it's built however news never gives all the details even if they know all the details. It is blocking the canal. Perhaps there's a happy medium, I hope, such as the owner taking only some of it down. It doesn't look like it absolutely need to be as long as it is. That is one of the details this video fails to share; why the dock is as long as it is.
I don't know that there is an update published anywhere, but the dock has been torn down and Kent built a new dock and uses the boat channel that his mega-dock obstructed. Pictures of that new dock can be seen on his Facebook page, along with him continuing to lie about what transpired.
Wait a minute..there is something missing here..it has to be a low seasonal water issue correct. Why are the docks so long? how can a navigable waterway not have a navigable entrance into a lake??! As far as the dredging is concerned that can be a lengthy process..It would need, as im sure they know, an environmental impact statement drawn up, with an environmental consulting firm to fill in the blanks..Its more complicated then land excavating because u have less control of what happens after u dig the hole.. Money will NOT speed up the process..Permitting can take years depending on the sensitivity of the lake to disturbance..So whether or not he would get his money back on the dock, in court, whoknows; but it wont begoing back out that far if he wins..or the permitting wouldnt have been rescinded in the first place.. Some guy complaining didnt start this slip-n-slide, unless... something that had been overlooked for decades was resurected when the 85k dock guy, built the dock and the complainer pulled it out when he needed too..idk..YEA, I LIVED ON A STATE OWNED LAKE..!! SUCKERS!!
It's a little late for the term "denied" to be of valid use... sounds like some "good ole boy" shenanigans going on...
None of those people shouldve been allowed to build docks that far out but taking his away and only his, is wrong.
It does seem that those docks go way out which must infringe upon a good deal of public space. Still the dredging feels like a generous compromise after he got proper approval and made the investment, I wonder if such projects require a public hearing.
The reason for a long dock like that is due to depth issues, likely the Chanel he went over is only a few feet deep, allowing only a select type of vessel through, while in order to get your deep vhull in enough water to run it, is by extending the dock out to that point. It's a very very very common practice.
There’s a channel that goes in front of his lot and the lot to the north of him that provides access to the canal. It doesn’t go in front of the other lots with long docks. This was done in 2003. He bought the property in 2016 full knowing this. He was told before he built the dock it would obstruct the channel and wasn’t allowed. He ignored that and filed a misleading permit application that didn’t depict the channel.
floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
@@nagel133 Ahh, that makes sense. Out here in California, the water is shallow for like 10 feet and then drops off super fast, LOL.
I agree that he should be allowed to leave the dock...BUT...he DID NOT pay 28 million in sales taxes. The public paid the taxes; he was just the transfer agent.
Also, he committed fraud to get the permit, then exceeded the permit.
Who does he need a dock that long if theres a deep enough route 3 meters from his shoreline?
that route is deep enough for lighter watercraft than his boat.
There's a reason this guy tried to win the argument in the media rather than in court. The facts are not as he stated them to be. He got permission to build a dock, but he didn't get permission to build the dock he built at the length he built it at. That makes all the difference. This was some half-assed reporting.
Bingo!
Ironically they have made their whole permit process not mean anything. Why would anyone pay and go through the hassle of getting permits if they can be approved twice just to later post construction be revoked lol. Imagine if this was a significantly more expensive project like in the millions. I hope he sues gets his dock paid for and it stays up, whiny neighbors annoy us all.
Why does it have to be so long out?
But the state should have looked into it.
The 190 foot dock is now only about 12 feet.
Which is what i should have been in the first place. He had no need to build across the boat channel to get to deeper water, because the boat channel was there specifically to provide deep water access to open water.
Was there any additional information on this. I would be curious to know why dredging wouldn't be a good compromise?
Who will pay for the dredging in 10 years when it needs it again?
@@seaturtledog I'd say the city/county since they screwed up and approved the dock twice.
The city can do two things to make this right.
1. Reimburse the citizen for the construction and removal cost of the dock THEY approved.
2. Let him pay for the initial dredging and they take it up thereafter.
I say they do a cost analysis and choose the solution that impacts the tax payers least.
I don't terribly care for either as the money comes from the tax payer, but I don't appreciate the government going after an individual after they gave him their blessing.
Ultimately the officials should be held accountable for their part in this cluster.
@@seaturtledog DEP caused the problem. They should be the ones paying to keep it dredged.
More info here:
floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
He knew what he was doing. Built a dock not in compliance with the permit he got, in violation of preexisting regulations, knowingly blocking channel access, and after he was told not to build it.
@@epia125 This story left out a bunch of info on how this guy was trying to be slick. He got a permit to build that went to the channel that didn't have to give notification to people with riparian rights to the channel. He then kept building across the channel and got an after-the-fact permit. Where he screwed up up was now the people had a 30 day window to contest the new permit and they did. When they contested it was discovered that the channel was owned by the state trust and he had no rights to build anything crossing it. All the judge did was revoke the second permit. He not only had to tear it down, he got hit with fines for building on state land without a valid lease.
oh the problems of the filthy rich!
Did the homeowner know he was screwing over the people in the canal?
This is a nice guy but keep pushing him and he's gonna end up winning millions from the state in damages and restitution.
You're going to need to continually dredge it. Not just once! And each big storm fills it all back in. I agree with the owner. My thoughts are that the state should pick up the continuous dredging bill, which I'm sure will go over like a lead balloon. Also, the neighbor is getting screwed.
Should never allow them to build a pier this damn long in first place absolute bs
Let's think why so long? Maybe the water depth near shore is not deep enough for a boat. Maybe it's a tide issue. Maybe there is a protected native aquatic life that close to shore. The aerial picture of the property shows all the neighbors have long docks.
Then they dont need a pier there, ever heard of dry storage
Video literally said a neighbor complained about how his pier blocked his route to canal, if water is to shallow for boat then use a dry storage facility no excuse for cutting off 190 feet of public water with his money
Take the state to court.
Sounds like the complaining neighbor has friends in high places
When you purchase a waterfront home, there is no guarantee you will have or keep boat access, unless you are directly on a govt maintained channel. The neighbor should lose. It was nice that he offered a solution, but the neighbor should lose.
it's access from the canal not just one person. he lied on his permit in the first place and wouldn't have been able to block the waterway if he filed legitimately.
the channel was permitted and dredged by the Subdivision developers to provide deep water assess and the lots served by the channel were sold on the basis of having deep water access to the waterway, (which makes them more desirable and expensive than lots with no deep water access) and the rights to the dredged channel were transferred to the subdivision Owner's association. This wasn't just some naturally deep water, it was an actual permitted and dredged channel that was part of the subdivision infrastructure. It wasn't *a* neighbor, the asshole's dock cut off deep-water access to at least 6 other lots in the subdivision, although only 4 participated in the legal complaint.
The state should lose and made to dredge the canal for all the tax they make!
It’s the state’s mistake, you can’t revoke a permit once the job is complete- the permit is null
@@stancrawford2147 Well, not true in this case. 1) the permit application contained false information. A permit issued on the basis of a falsified application can be recinded. 2) the dock ws built on state owned submerged lands. It’s not his property. He has to have a current use permit for the dock to continue to exist on state lands.
@@andrewalexander9492 please explain how public waterway can be deeded into a subdivision
'I own a business that has paid over $28 million in sales tax.' No your customers have paid that money, you merely collected it.
He did get screwed with the permit and the county should pay for dredging yet he offered. He was arrogant to say "I paid 28 million". A simple "I've paid my share of taxes and as a taxpayer I feel betrayed" would of been adequate.
Wow. Captain semantics to the rescue!
It's funny how you can tell losers, from a post.
you KNOW this person has no actual friends
@@Bozemanjustin It's as if the $28M was laying around and the business owner did nothing more than picking it up and mailing it to the tax authority. "I found the $28 million in a bucket and I wanted you to have it", said the business owner. "Didn't you work and takes risks and lots of personal time to attract customers, service those customers, then pay us a 'cut' of your income" said the taxing authority. "No, the $28 million was in a bucket and I wanted you to have it, I did nothing to make the money appear" said the business owner.
@@Bozemanjustin ironically, you're the one who seems out of touch
@@VinylUnboxings nah, he’s right. The original comment is arguing the semantics of businesses paying tax, that’s hilariously pathetic.
The state issued the permit, the dock was built in compliance. The state should have authority to revoke a permit BEFORE the dock was constructed if it received complaints, NOT after. In Ontario, Canada if you apply for a permit to construct something or redone something, the neighbouring properties must be notified in advance of the permit being granted. I am assuming that the neighbour had warning of this dock going in! I believe a better solution must be worked out, neighbours are becoming nightmares!
Maybe the neighbor who complained after it was built has more money\influence than this guy. Isn't it who you know?
Firstly, Ken(the reporter?) needs get his jacket pressed. Secondly, he needs to tuck his shirt in. Jesus h Christ.
Thank god he had his mask on... i heard covid was floating in the water
@Steve Fox in my name? The H stands for Halibut
@Steve Fox ohhhh i often wondered that as well, father would say it on occasion.
I guess Halibut is better then haliburton
@Steve Fox “Howard,” for Christ’s sake. It’s always been Howard.
Everyone pays for their own mistakes. This is clearly the states mistake. The state need to pay the cost of the dock, plus damages
agreed, that state *needs* to pay
Unless the state issued the permit with incomplete information, for instance the dock builder not disclosing the design intersecting the navigation channel the allows adjacent property owners full use of the lake. This would be similar to building a cross fence on an established and legally protected easement on dry land. It's really impossible to understand all of the facts concerning this case from the brief news segment.
@@michaelduffee6402 Well, if you're interested in knowing more about what really went on here, the court decision has a a great deal of information about the real history, not the one sided and somewhat dishonest version being told by Kemp. floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf
Cliff's notes:
Kemp absolutely knew that there was a preexisting, marked, permitted dredged boat channel running through there, and knew that his dock would block it. And he knew all this before he even applied for a permit, let alone started construction. Knowing that he would be screwing over his neighbors (He is quoted in the court document as saying "That's their problem, they can't stop me" ) he went ahead with it. His permit application concealed the existence of the known manmade boat channel, instead showing the lake bed there to be shallow and flat with no channel, whcih is false and was known by Kemp to be false.
@@michaelduffee6402 agreed
You are absolutely wrong. The permits spelled out exactly what he could do and he violated it. When you get a permit you must follow it to the letter.
so the dude is willing to pay to dredging bill and make a better route for everyone one and they still said no.... ridiculous what a waste of the tax payers dollars
But the permits were *NOT* denied. They were issued.
If the permits were issued in error the the state needs to refund the money spent to build the dock.
Unless the applicant lied on his permit application that is a different matter. But it doesn't sound like that is what happened.
He didn't abide by the permit, that's what happened. Look through some of the other comments, there are links to the court case and additional findings. The dude was trying to pull a fast one.
@@lordofentropy "Unless the applicant lied on his permit application that is a different matter."
seeing this video is getting a lot of traction now... this lawsuit was my family versus 2 neighbors a few houses down. somehow with everyone on our side, we still lost this and had to remove our dock and replace it with one that doesn't really go out much at all. Some people really are just gum on a sidewalk to me... the Fuzzles and Shefflers
What was the maximum dock length on the permit versus the actual constructed dock length?
People only side with your family because they don't know the truth.
Boo hoo. Don't submit fraudulent information next time and you'll be fine.
HIS COMPANY paid $28M in sales taxes? I don't think so. People pay sales taxes, not businesses.
Crazy that 4 other potatoes actually gave you a thumbs up.
Lmao he DOES NOT pay $28 million in sales tax, his customers do.
Bring a lawsuit against the state.
He got his permits and the channel access claimed by the neighbor isnt optimal I would imagine he has a very strong case and the neighbor can pay his own dredging costs screw him.
*EDIT* ...Seems the guy built beyond the boundary of his permit if that is true he is screwed.
This is the type of sheet that makes a ppl snap. Think about that society.
Well the state is legally required to repay him all costs if they want to imminent domain his property.
eminent domain
Once again! You can NEVER trust a State/Gov't agency. Never!
WTF - It is insane to wear a mask outside in the bright sun with an ocean breeze.
This is a video from over a year and a half ago. Before the vaccines and when they were still figuring things out.
@@fartzinacan lol vaccine..... yea right.
I mean it’s obviously too long, however he got a permit idk.
It doesn’t look any longer than the neighboring docks. His neighbor is well injected somehow. He must be to get a judge to intervene on his behalf. If I were the judge I’d be like quit throwing a little bitch fit and take the dredging offer.
Seems that the dock is excessively long, until I see the map and realize all of the neighboring docks are that long or longer.
Its shallow water where they are at.
Hence required dredging
Absolutely ridiculous
It just amazes me how rich people find ways to “one up” each other.
Thank God I’ll never have a chance to be that wealthy.
This guy is very nice and is in the right 100%. His neighbor shouldn't of gone behind his back about the dock and just asked to come up with a solution
This guy is a freaking lying sack. He submitted false information on the permit applications, rendering them invalid. He went behind his neighbors backs by not posting the permit notice and building the dock without allowing them a chance to challenge the permits before they were issued, as a result they challenged them within the 30 days of completion, as legally required. They won because of the false applications and the dock that he built exceeding the permit was just a bonus. He lost his $85k he spent on that dock, had to pay to remove it, then had to get a permit to build one that didn't block the existing public access channel. Perhaps, if he was "a nice guy" he wouldn't have been out over 100k but when you think you can do whatever you want because your rich, you get to pay higher penalties.
Copying comment for your attention.
"Chele
Owner failed to build in accordance to the original limits stipulated by the Army Corps of Engineers 2004 assessment, he's in the wrong. He was only permitted to build to the edge of the existing channel not cutting across it and extending out to deep water. The case is here: floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/19-1272.pdf"
Screw the government and the state and the person who cried about the dang dock!!!
Sue the state, the city, DEP, everyone.
But the Permits were approved and Dock was Built. So how can Deny Building Permits AFTER the Dock was Completed. You cant.
You can if the permits were issued on the basis of false information in the application. This guy's permit application had falsified information. Boom, permit rescinded ....
Man offering solutions, government screwing things up
We're from the government and, we're here to help.
If the channel to get out is right in front of his backyard, why did he even need a dock that big?
He didn’t, he could have built a dock on his shoreline and used the dredged channel. Thats why the subdivision developers spent a lot of money permitting and dredging the channel; to provide deepwater access to his lot, and at least 6 neighboring lots. He eventually lost this fight (video is 2 years old) and tore down the mega-dock, and built a dock at his shoreline and uses the channel that his mega dock blocked.
@@andrewalexander9492 "mega dock" Lmao, more like killo dock. Am I right?!
@@NickAbbot. Kilo, mega, whatever it takes ;)
I think the state is in the wrong and should have to pay for the dredging of the canal!. I hope he wins and sues the living crap out of Florida!.
He's already had due process. Read his case. He lied on the permits and then built the dock outside of the parameters of the permits. He lost as he should have.
@@19kimo61 he lied? please explain - i didn't catch it.
@@STScott-qo4pw lazy reporting. First off it was not the state that revoked the permits it was a judge . 4 of his neighbors sued him and the state agency
@@STScott-qo4pw it's not clear in the video however he's already had a hearing and he lied on his application for a permit. That's how he received a permit and then he didn't fulfill the permit as it was intended. You can Google his name and the county and you'll see the court case.
He will never win because it amounts to fraud on his part.
This guys says he has paid $28M in sales taxes to the state of Florida. I believe he has collected $28M in sales taxes for the state of Florida. The taxes were paid by his customers. In any event that doesn't entitle him to anything. I suspect that there is language in the permit that states it can be revoked or rescinded by the state of Florida. Kind of risky to pay $85K for something for which there is no guarantee of permanence.
Who do you deny permits that have already been approved, and AND built ??
The job is finished. Permits are no longer needed
He has 85k for a dock, I dont feel bad for him.