7/27/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I BOOK JG PAGE 090 Plan. Staff reviewed it in September 1997 and wrote a letter that it was consistent with our regulations. This was landward of the mean -high waterline, was not submerged, and approximately one-third to one-half of it is upland area. One of the reasons staff supported it was it allowed for the actual building pad to be focused on the existing uplands. If it had not been deeded over, then potentially the owner could still have the right to build on the property and would ultimately possibly have to do more wetland filling. This also cleared up the ownership of the right-of-way for Live Oak Drive, which he understood was not built in the initial right-of-way alignment. All these factors were considered as part of the approved mitigation. Responding to Commissioner Stanbridge's inquiry, Attorney O'Brien advised that the State would have the option of not selling the property. There was no compulsion to sell it, but if they were going to, under the Statute, the first choice would be to sell it to the upland riparian owner. Normally the County would have the first option, but an adjacent riparian owner would get the first option in this case. Several things about this bothered Chairman Macht. The process of accretion on the littoral was one thing, but on the riparian was another. He suspected that the accretion may have been through unnatural causes. What really bothered him, however, was that he did not recall any of this having come before the Commission. Attorney O'Brien explained that the initial May 1997 trade came before the Commission, but the transfer of land from the Trustees did not. Chairman Macht wanted this type of thing never to happen again without the Board being given notice. Mr. DeBlois pointed out that it is common for the State to require such reviews and letters from the County. An example concerns the Coastal Construction Control Line: any development on oceanfront property within the State's permitting jurisdiction requires a review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and a letter from the County. Vice Chairman Adams believed the red flag in this instance was the sale of public land without an auction. She could understand the road right-of-way designation reversal, but pointed out that this is one of the reasons the County has fought for shared title in environmental land acquisitions. Attorney O'Brien advised that this is governed by Statute under Section 253.111(5). Commissioner Stanbridge wondered if this was a very old law, since times have changed and now the State helps the County put together lands such as these for protection. JULY 279 1999 88 • Is