Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Easement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves vacating 12-foot public utility easement at 31925 Van Dyke

5958018 · August 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Warren City Council voted to vacate a 12-foot north–south public utility easement abutting Lots 19–22 of Curfew Subdivision at 31925 Van Dyke after the city’s planning and water staff confirmed no utilities run in the strip.

The Warren City Council on Tuesday approved a petition to vacate a 12-foot north–south public utility easement abutting Lots 19 through 22 of Curfew Subdivision at 31925 Van Dyke.

The easement petition, filed by Lobdas Self Storage LLC and related property owners, was summarized at the meeting by Planning Director Ron Worth. "This is a simple 12 foot wide North South public utility easement," Worth said, and he told the council the site has site-plan approval and construction was underway in the front portion of the development.

Petitioner representative David Meyer told council staff and members the team performed field surveys and engineering checks. "We can't find any evidence of utilities ever being in this easement," Meyer said, adding the work included a professional engineer and physical exploration.

Councilmember Lafferty asked the water department whether a sanitary sewer or other utility would be affected. Water-department staff member Miss Gapschas reported the department's earlier map was incorrect and that there was no sanitary sewer or water line within the easement. After that clarification, the council voted to approve the vacation.

Council members recorded their votes in favor; the chair declared the motion carried.

Why it matters: Vacating an obsolete easement clears title and reduces constraints on how the rear portion of the site can be used. The petitioner said the action was primarily a cleanup step to remove an unused strip that could otherwise limit future layout options.