Planning board forwards two San Carlos Canal-basin vacation requests to commissioners

Charlotte County planning staff told the Planning and Zoning Board on March 1 that two adjacent street-vacation petitions would vacate portions of the undeveloped San Carlos Canal Basin behind properties in the Harbor Heights subdivision and, if approved by the Board of County Commissioners, would give the adjacent owners additional developable area while retaining residential development rights.

Johnny Shao of the Community Development Department described application SV-25-01 as a request to vacate about 26,142.97 square feet behind Lots 60–64, Block 191, and said staff recommended conditional approval. Jenny Hsiao presented the companion petition, SV-25-02, affecting about 24,382.06 square feet behind Lots 39–44, Block 199. Both staff presentations noted the site is zoned Residential Single-Family 3.5, designated low-density residential on the future land-use map, and that portions of the proposed vacated area abut flood zones and a Category 1 tropical storm surge coastal high-hazard area.

Staff said the county attorney’s office styled the applications as street vacations and recommended similar conditions for both petitions: a 6-foot drainage easement for county drainage and public utilities, a 5-foot pedestrian walkway easement to preserve pedestrian access to the canal area, a 20-foot canal maintenance easement, submittal of an HCP application with payment of the mitigation fee based on total square footage to offset habitat loss, and a restrictive covenant limiting the base density of the vacated area to zero units. Staff also required the applicant to provide legal descriptions, sketches and draft easement instruments for recording within 180 days if the commissioners approve the vacations.

During discussion, a board member raised concerns that successive vacations could deny future access for parcels higher in the basin if the canal were ever developed, asking whether the combined easements would effectively block future navigation or access. Staff responded that the canal maintenance easement is for maintenance rather than navigational access and that the pedestrian walkway is intended to provide a 5-foot pedestrian connection from upland parcels to the canal area. Staff also cautioned that full dredging of an entirely undredged canal would face substantial permitting hurdles and that approval or denial of a vacation is a legislative discretion that would revert the right-of-way to the underlying owners if vacated.

Scott Ford, owner of one of the affected properties, told the board he planned to build on his parcels and said the vacation would allow him to remove dumped material and invasive vegetation on the site. Shao noted that affected utilities and county departments reviewed the petitions and that the real estate services department required the drainage easements for county purposes.

The board voted to forward SV-25-01 and SV-25-02 to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations of approval and with the staff-recommended conditions. The transcript records the motions and voice votes forwarding the two petitions; for SV-25-01 and SV-25-02 the record shows the motions carried and the items were sent to the commissioners (detailed roll-call voter names were not recorded in the transcript for those motions). The adoption hearings before the Board of County Commissioners are scheduled for April 22, 2025.

What happens next: The county commissioners will consider the staff recommendations, the recorded conditions and any additional testimony at the April 22 hearing. If the commissioners adopt the vacations, staff conditions require recorded easement instruments and mitigation payments within 180 days of recording the resolution to vacate.