Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Access Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board asks state parks staff to follow up on access, permits and damage risks at Trough subdivision
Summary
Board members raised concerns about private access over State Park land at the Trough subdivision after testimony from a resident; staff agreed to track agency responsibility, review historical records, and follow up with site visits and a draft letter to clarify rights-of-way and permit requirements.
Board members spent substantial time on Jan. 8 discussing access, permits and potential environmental impacts at the Trough subdivision after members summarized written testimony from a resident, referred to in the meeting as Mr. Bailey.
Alec (board member) described Mr. Bailey's recorded comments for the minutes, including that property owners have historically used the lagoon and right-of-ways to land small aircraft and offload equipment, and that some private activity appears to occur repeatedly across State Park land. "There's no way they can access their lot without going over parkland," Alec said, describing repeated four‑wheeler use and a beaten path in the lagoon area.
Several board members noted confusion over which agency manages specific rights‑of‑way, with DNR, borough and State Parks roles described as inconsistent in historic correspondence. State Parks staff (Hans) told the board the borough may manage subdivision right‑of‑ways while the state manages section lines, but confirmed staff would research the records, review the prior correspondence, and follow up.
Hans said staff would track communications with the borough and other divisions and would update the board. He also suggested listening to the audio of the original testimony to better capture the resident’s concerns and agreed the draft letter the board prepared could be passed to staff for follow‑up.
Why it matters: The discussion flagged potential environmental impacts to a sensitive coastal lagoon and erosion-prone berms if larger landing craft or repeated vehicle traffic are permitted. Board members emphasized the need for a clear policy on permitted access and stronger interagency coordination to avoid ad hoc access that could harm habitat.
What’s next: The board voted informally to finalize a draft letter and hand it to staff for agency follow‑up; Hans committed to obtaining historical records about the subdivision, checking permits and confirming which agency manages the right‑of‑ways. No binding permits or formal decisions were made at the meeting.
