Board takes no action on St. Mary’s Bay Drive driveway and decorative-column dispute
Loading...
Summary
Neighbors and property owners disputed a driveway connection and removal of a decorative column on a county right-of-way; residents cited a 1996 county-issued driveway permit and a neighborhood petition; the board declined to order removal and took no further action at the meeting.
A dispute over driveway access and a decorative driveway column on St. Mary’s Bay Drive drew multiple residents and detailed testimony at the Aug. 14 Santa Rosa County commission meeting; the board ultimately took no action.
Residents and property owners told the board the column and driveway predate later lot sales and were permitted in 1996. Morgan Branza, representing Coastal (landowner concerns), said the key question was maintenance responsibility: if a driveway or column sits in a county right-of-way, who maintains it and who is responsible for liability?
Dr. Troy Lee, speaking on behalf of his father (the property owner at 1700 St. Mary’s Bay Drive), argued the driveway was lawfully permitted in 1996 and has served as private access for 29 years. He cited specific sections of the Santa Rosa County Land Development Code and said the request by a neighbor (referred to in testimony as the Brammers) to remove one of a matched pair of lighted decorative columns and tie a U-shaped driveway into the existing driveway would intensify use and violate code protections for preexisting structures.
Tricia (Bridal) Lee read a statement from her father, Lloyd Ralph Piercey, saying the column and other improvements were installed pursuant to county approval decades ago and that the neighborhood petition opposing alteration had collected about 40 signatures out of 44 homes.
County staff explained the underlying technical issue: the platted right-of-way at the end of St. Mary’s Bay Drive is adjacent to a drainage ditch and is not paved or maintained as a through road; vacating the right-of-way would complicate county access to drainage features. Staff advised the parties they could pursue a formal vacation request or apply for permits for connections, but emphasized that a new connection would require planning and building permits and compliance with road-connection regulations.
After hearing testimony, the board took no action: staff had previously advised that the pillar would not be removed administratively and any change would require board approval or separate permitting. Several commissioners said the driveway appears to be grandfathered and well maintained and noted the practical challenges of vacating a right-of-way that provides access to drainage infrastructure.
Why it matters: The dispute highlights how long-standing field conditions, historical permits and unmaintained platted rights-of-way can create conflicts between neighboring property owners. The board’s decision to take no action preserves the status quo while leaving options for the parties to pursue a formal vacation or permitting route.
