Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Isle Of Pines Road Closure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Isle of Pines right-of-way closure amid unresolved ownership and legal questions
Summary
A petition to close two platted, unopened right-of-ways in Isle of Pines was tabled indefinitely on Feb. 10 after county counsel and petitioners’ counsel disagreed on whether the Board has authority while ownership remains legally unresolved.
The Board of Commissioners on Feb. 10 voted to table indefinitely a petition to close two small, platted right-of-ways in the Isle of Pines subdivision after legal questions about ownership and whether the county ever accepted dedication of the rights-of-way remained unresolved.
The petition, first heard in 2020, asked the board to close two stubbed platted ways that lead to the lake. County Attorney Adam Jones briefed the board on the legal history and recommended tabling or deferring the matter because the county’s research did not show the county or the state Department of Transportation ever accepted dedication of the platted strips as public roads. Jones said case law and the record suggest the county lacks clear authority to close those ways without additional court findings.
Mitchell Bledsoe, attorney for the petitioners, argued the dedication could be established by implication or prescription — that historic public and neighborhood use of the access strips supports acceptance — and noted the county has closed similar unopened rights-of-way in prior years. Jones and Bledsoe also disagreed about the effect of a prior quiet-title action that invalidated a quitclaim deed from a defunct private entity (Isle of Pines Boat Ramp Inc.). Jones said that ruling only disposed of that entity’s claim and did not determine ultimate ownership; Bledsoe said the court had effectively cleared the way.
Several commissioners said they were reluctant to decide the issue without a definitive court determination of ownership and recommended the parties seek quiet-title resolution or otherwise produce a clear owner. The county attorney advised the board that a decision not to hear the petition would be easier to defend in court than a contested closing the board might later be asked to justify.
By motion the board tabled the matter indefinitely until ownership is proven; staff and counsel were asked to return the item if petitioners can provide clear legal ownership or documentation that establishes acceptance of dedication. The board did not open a new evidentiary public hearing at the Feb. 10 meeting.
Why this matters: The two right-of-ways grant water access and have generated long-running disputes among lot owners, a defunct private entity and the county. Owners’ access rights, public safety questions and liability for unmaintained strips of land are unresolved until ownership and acceptance issues are settled.
Next step: Petitioners or interested parties must produce court determinations or clear title evidence establishing ownership or reliance on dedication by prescription/implication; the board will revisit only after that showing.
