Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Rights Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies after‑the‑fact revocable license for fence at 117 Inlet Drive
Summary
After public discussion and staff briefing, the commission voted 3–1 to deny a revocable license request that would have allowed a fence and landscaping to remain in a city right-of-way at 117 Inlet Drive; commissioners cited precedent and public-property concerns.
City Commissioners denied a request to approve a revocable license permitting a fence, landscaping, irrigation and lighting to remain in the Inlet Drive right-of-way at 117 Inlet Drive, following staff briefing and neighbor comments.
Stephen Slaughter, the city's utilities and public-works director, told the commission staff reviewed a fence permit and found the constructed fence and landscaping encroached into public right-of-way. He said staff recommended a revocable license so the property owner could leave the improvements in place but that the license would be revocable, would not make the city responsible for maintenance and would not run with the land. Slaughter also said the improvements were not located on top of existing utility infrastructure and staff had no immediate plans to install utilities in that specific area.
Several commissioners and neighbors said they had inspected the site and expressed concern about setting a precedent for after‑the‑fact approvals on public property. A motion to deny the license carried on a roll-call vote: Nancy Sykes Klein — yes; Barbara Blonder — yes; John De Prater — no; Cynthia Gares — yes. After the vote, the mayor confirmed the license agreement had not been approved.
Why it matters: Commissioners said allowing an after‑the‑fact encroachment into right-of-way on vacant parcels raises precedent concerns and could prompt similar requests for other properties on that corridor. Staff noted the license would have required insurance, silenced city maintenance obligations and permitted the city to revoke the license with notice if the right-of-way were needed for a public project.
Clarifying details read into the record: staff said the license would cover see-through fencing, palm trees, ground cover, irrigation, pavers and lighting; the license does not run with the land (i.e., a new owner would not automatically receive it); grantee/property owner would carry public-liability insurance and remove improvements if required; the city could revoke with a 10‑day notice if necessary.
