Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Vacate Panther topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves Panther Street right‑of‑way vacation with drainage easement and owner removal clause
Summary
After public opposition and litigation concerns, the board approved the vacating of a portion of Panther Street with a reserved drainage easement and language requiring the property owner to remove and replace any structures at their expense if the county needs the easement.
Seminole County commissioners on March 25 approved vacating a portion of the platted Panther Street right of way after an extended public hearing that included neighborhood opposition, competing filings, and a proposed court action. The board added conditions reserving a drainage easement and requiring the owner to pay the county’s costs to remove and replace any improvements that would interfere with county use of the easement.
Caitlin Apgar, planner with Planning and Development Services, presented the continued item. Philip Capra, attorney for the Lewises (the applicants), asked the board to continue the hearing until a full five‑member board could consider the matter; Capra proposed April 8 if a continuance were granted. The county’s policies require applicants to submit continuance requests at least 48 hours in advance, and commissioners discussed whether that rule applied given that the item had been continued previously.
Multiple neighbors opposed the vacate during the public comment period. Tara Merritt (1580 Panther Street) urged denial, saying the vacate would award county land to applicants who had built structures in the right of way without permits; Michael Persutti (980 Elm Street) and other residents raised concerns about encroachments, alleged interference with surveyors, and potential impacts on drainage and future property access. Residents also pointed to an ongoing court filing: Persutti filed an emergency motion in related litigation and, according to staff, also filed his own application to vacate the same right of way (application 25‑00900003).
Staff and county counsel advised the board that the pending civil litigation between private parties did not name the county and, in counsel's view, did not prevent the board from acting. Staff clarified that when a platted right of way on the edge of a plat is vacated, the underlying fee typically reverts to the adjacent platted owner; staff said Persutti’s property was not part of the original plat and therefore would not be entitled to the underlying fee by virtue of this vacate.
In response to neighbors’ drainage concerns, counsel and the applicant said the Lewises had executed a drainage easement in favor of the county and offered to add express language committing the property owner to remove and replace any improvements that interfered with county drainage use. The applicant’s attorney said the property owner would accept a condition making them financially responsible to remove and replace any structure if the county needed the easement for drainage or utilities.
Following rebuttal and discussion, a motion to grant the right‑of‑way vacation with added language requiring the owner to incur removal and replacement costs for any structures that block drainage or county use of the easement passed; commissioners voted in favor and the chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
The record shows substantial neighborhood opposition, competing filings, and the county’s requirement that a drainage easement be reserved and enforced; the approved resolution will be recorded in the county’s public records and contains the easement and owner‑responsibility language approved by the board.
