9/5/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

s � � Commissioner Bird believed there is not much shoreline left there, and there is an erosion problem. If they have it, they will have to stabilize it, and if we keep it, we will have that responsibility. He expressed concern about the public's ability to use that property if this 10' is exchanged and no longer belongs to the county. Attorney Collins noted that you are on county property if your boat lands on the Trail itself; if there are any areas that are vegetated and not maintained as a road between the road and the river, that may not be county property even with the Mainte- nance Map. Commissioner Scurlock asked Commissioner Bowman if there is any ability to go through a permitting process and fill in eroded property and have additional land by the river, and she did not know. Further question arose as to what the county actually owns and Attorney Collins explained that we have a 40' Maintenance Map filed, but your claim is only valid to the extent that you maintain the traveled way. If we only maintained 251, then our claim to the full 40' might not be good. He noted that the real advantage in this proposal is that they are proposing to deed us 40' throughout that segment. Whether there is an ability to get additional docks based on riparian rights, he did not know. Commissioner Bowman stressed that no matter who owns it, it is going to have to be stabilized at some time, but she certainly did not want to give them the right to build docks. Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing the developer of Indian River Trails, and advised that it was Mr. Cain who made this proposal. He will make this proposal to Indian River Shores next week on Phase II, and he was instructed by Mr. Cain to make the same proposal to the County. If the County wants it or if they don't want it, that is fine because the developer doesn't gain anything from it. In regard to the question about filling in eroded land, Attorney Barkett informed SEP 5 N89 55 ; .,� Eo.