Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves Gerbing Road driveway permit despite ownership dispute; county counsel says civil court is appropriate forum
Summary
The board voted 5–0 to approve a right-of-way permit for a driveway at 1358 Gerbing Road after planning staff recommended approval and public commenters disputed the property boundary. County counsel told the board the dispute is a private civil matter and approval does not itself authorize construction if other legal obstacles remain.
The Nassau County Board of County Commissioners on March 10 authorized staff to issue a right-of-way permit for a new driveway at 1358 Gerbing Road in Fernandina Beach, a roadway designated as a Canopy Road, despite competing public testimony over who owns the property.
Planning staff presented the permit application and said the work — approximately one new driveway connection — would not remove any protected canopy trees and met the county’s Canopy Road rules (Land Development Code §37.08). “With this proposal no canopy tree will be removed and staff recommends approval,” Planner Stephanie Kaiser told the board.
At the meeting, Mark Manning, who identified himself as a neighboring property owner, told commissioners he has paid taxes on the parcel since 1998, that the county GIS shows his ownership, and that the applicant’s survey is incorrect. “They've got an incorrect survey, and so they're trying to use that incorrect survey to take this land from me,” Manning said. He urged the board to continue the item so both parties could sort the boundary on the record.
The applicant’s representatives — including John Mulley, who presented a survey and said professional monuments were located by surveyors in 1985 and again in 2025, and property owner Christine Colson — disputed Manning’s claim. Colson told commissioners she had worked with surveyors and that her team would stand behind those survey results.
County Attorney Denise May (on the record earlier as county counsel) and staff advised the board that the county’s role is limited. As the county attorney noted, “This could end up in a quiet-title civil action between the two of them. Nothing to do with the county.” Counsel told commissioners they needed “competent substantial reasons” under the ordinance to deny a permit; otherwise the disagreement should be resolved in civil court. The deputy county attorney also told the board that approval of a permit “does not turn dirt” and that any equitable relief needed by either private party must be sought in court.
After debate, a motion to approve the permit was made and seconded; the clerk recorded a 5–0 vote in favor of issuing the permit. Staff will proceed to issue the right-of-way permit consistent with standard conditions. Commissioners and counsel emphasized that the permit action did not resolve property ownership and that litigation remains an option for the parties.
The record shows the permit concerned only a limited underground/driveway crossing and that staff emphasized no canopy tree impacts. The board’s recorded action matches staff recommendation; the ownership dispute remains unresolved and, per county counsel, must be adjudicated in state civil court if contested.
