Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stillright Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners hear strong opposition to 10‑foot easements proposed for Stillright Point road‑raising project
Summary
Design staff told commissioners the Stillright Point design will require 10‑foot temporary/permanent easements on adjacent parcels to accommodate utility relocations, drainage and sloped transitions; nearly all speakers from the neighborhood opposed mandatory easements without compensation or more outreach.
Monroe County staff told the Board of County Commissioners on April 16 that the Stillright Point Road Elevation and Stormwater Management Project design requires 10‑foot easements on private parcels in the project area for utilities, inlet structures and to provide safe slopes from a raised roadway down to adjacent properties.
Judy (county planner) explained the rationale in a briefing that showed narrow rights‑of‑way in Stillright Point (some 30 feet or less) and the need for additional room to place inflow structures and to relocate utilities that would conflict with a raised crown. "Higher road is a wider road," she told the commission, noting that utilities including vacuum sewer vents and power poles are close to current pavement edges and may have to be shifted.
The required easement would clear a 10‑foot strip adjacent to the right of way and would require removal or relocation of fences, pavers and landscaping that currently sit close to the pavement edge. Staff said the easements would be recorded and required for construction; if the project were not constructed the county would not retain the easements.
Residents at the meeting and on Zoom reacted strongly. Multiple commenters said they had not been properly notified and objected to losing use or control of portions of their front yards, to the cost and disruption of moving landscaping, driveways and private improvements, and to the timing. "If you take 10 feet of our property, our driveways, our gates, our fences, our landscaping that were permitted and inspected, who will be responsible for the removal and placement of these investments?" asked Mary Kathleen McGrath. Several speakers suggested the county should pay for required changes or use eminent‑domain compensation rather than asking homeowners to move or fund removals.
Staff asked the board for direction to have the design consultant prepare a cost proposal to create legal descriptions and survey work for the easements so deeds could be prepared; the consultant also scheduled a public information meeting for April 28 to present the 60% design milestone. Commissioners debated whether to ask for the easement cost estimate now or wait for the April 28 public meeting; one commissioner asked staff to proceed with cost estimates and another emphasized community outreach. No final action to acquire easements was taken on April 16.
Ending: Staff said they will return with an easement cost proposal and noted the public information meeting April 28 as the next opportunity for detailed community discussion; commissioners directed further outreach before any mandatory easement asks.
