Neighbors' access concerns surface as board weighs transfers; land trust says no plan for parking or formal trails

At the start of the meeting a remote participant, Randy Hogan, asked the board for an assurance that any transfer would not enable new public-access parking, recreation trails or other infrastructure without clear review and approval.

"just to an assurance that it's not going to be developed for new public access parking recreation trails um and any other additional infrastructure without clear review and approval," the commenter said. Board members acknowledged the concern and said the topic would be discussed alongside the parcel reviews.

During the parcel discussion staff and the land trust representative reiterated there was no plan to add parking lots or formal trails on certain marshy parcels. A land trust representative said the transfer is intended to add stewardship capacity rather than to expand developed recreational infrastructure; any future parking or formal trail construction would require separate approvals and, if necessary, state sign-offs for crossings of state lands.

Board members suggested the council packet could note stewardship commitments and, if neighbors require stronger assurances, the board could recommend deed restrictions or covenant language to lock in particular access conditions. The board did not attach any mandatory deed restrictions in its recommendation; it left such options to the council's discretion.