This site was the location of the “Ideal Fish Camp” in the Town of Caxambas in the 1950s before Marco Island was developed. In the 1980’s a citizen submitted photos to the state, and the remaining cabins on the site were designated as historic. At some point the cabins were removed or destroyed, which is why it was not a problem to have the site “delisted” from the Florida Master Site File. The current Owner’s Estate acquired this property as 7 separate parcels. Six of them are platted lots on the plat for Marco Beach Unit 13. A copy of the plat is attached, and on the last page of the plat, the subject parcels are lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 405 below Osceola Court, and Lots 16, 17 and 18 of Block 408 above Osceola Court, plus the “fish camp” lot which is unplatted and marked as “Pettit” adjacent to Osceola Court. The fish camp lot was not platted because at the time the plat was filed by the Mackel brothers in the 1960s, that parcel was owned by a holdout named Pettit who refused to sell. Each of these 7 separate parcels are potentially buildable, with a single family home on each parcel. I believe that at one time each had a separate folio number for tax purposes. The properties have not been replatted or combined for land use or subdivision purposes. However, the property appraiser’s website reflects that for tax purposes only, the 7 parcels have been combined into 2 folio numbers, such that 1, 16, 17, 18 and the fish camp lot are combined int 1771 Osceola Court with one folio number, and Lots 2 and 3 are combined into 1781 Osceola court with another folio number. Combining adjacent parcels for tax purposes does not generally have anything do with land use, but instead is just for the convenience of getting only one tax bill instead of multiple tax bills. Most of the plats for Marco Island were drafted in a way that allows for development of multiple platted lots as one building site without the need for vacating the plat or trying replat of move property lines, and this is a good example. If you look at the dedications on the first page of the plat, the plat establishes utility and drainage easements of 10’ along the rear and 6’ on the side of each lot. Normally, that 6’ on the side of each lot. Normally, that 6’ easement on each side lot line would be a problem if you were trying to build one house on two or more lots, because it would create a 12’ strip where you could not build. But in order to address that issue, the plat includes in the dedication some language that says that the exceptions to the easements are : 1) side lot lines lying adjacent to streets shall contain no easements, 2) all lot lines adjacent to and abutting on waterways shall contain no easement, and 3) where more than one lot is intended as a building site or where parts of one or more lots are intended as a building site, the outside boundaries of said building site shall carry said easements would simply be automatically moved to the outside boundaries of the combined building site. There are a couple of features of this property that would probably be interesting and very valuable to a potential buyer. First, the plat shows that Lot 2 has 130’ of frontage on the water, and Lot 1 has 220” of frontage, and then the fish camp lot has additional frontage, with the longest seawall being about 140’ & additional frontage of 126’. In my experience it is unusual and desirable to have the ability to park a boat of 100’ or longer on this coast of Florida. As far as I know, boaters with yachts in excess of 100’ have to go to either Tampa or Fort Lauderdale. I was involved in the permitting of a boat slip at the Old Cove Inn near the Boat House Restaurant that is in excess of 100’ or larger. Of course we would need to check into the depth as well, but the length is a great feature. A buyer might be very interested in the property for this feature alone. Another feature is the fact that a buyer who acquires all of the parcels surrounding Osceola Court could likely get that public ROW vacated by applying to the city, resulting in the acquisition of an additional +-0.5 acres of land. I can’t guaranteed that the city council would approve the vacation, but if the owner was interested in using all 7 lots as a unified building site, it would not make sense to have that public ROW interrupting the estate. A number of years ago the city informed me that this could be done. I would expect that as long as access to all of the parcels was addressed the city informed me that this could be done. I would expect that as long as access to all of the parcels was addressed, the city would not want to continue maintaining a road at public expense that serves only one private owner. So whatever the combined acreage is, there is also a pretty good likelihood of the ability to acquire an additional 0.5 acres of this short road and cul-de-sac and the only cost would be the fees and expenses involved in processing the street vacation petition. Of course vacating the street only makes sense if the entire site is going to be used as one building site, or if access to all the properties is somehow addressed.