Council holds public hearing on partial right-of-way vacation at 140 Second Avenue East

Sumner’s City Council on May 5 opened a public hearing on a privately initiated petition to vacate a portion of right-of-way identified as Highland Street near 140 Second Avenue East, a residential area just south of State Route 410.

Deputy City Attorney Doug Ruth told the council the petition was brought by the owners of two parcels and that the vacation process is the statutory means for a city to return a public road to adjoining private property. He reviewed historical plats dating from the 1870s through the 1970s that showed multiple dedications and river migration, and said the disputed strip was rediscovered during a real-estate title review when a property owner attempted to sell.

Why it matters: the disputed strip overlaps two private parcels and, according to Ruth, has not been used for transportation or utilities for decades. Property owners say the unresolved right-of-way has prevented a sale and created a financial hardship for at least one owner.

Ruth described the right-of-way geometry and title history in detail, saying older plats show both Alder and Highland streets on different sides of a section centerline and that state deeds returned 30 feet of right-of-way to the city in the 1980s. He said the current vacation request covers only the blue-shaded portion shown on staff maps, affecting the two applicant parcels; the city did not initiate the action.

Ruth said the ordinance that would formally vacate the strip is expected to return to the council for consideration at a future meeting, likely May 19. He also told council members the forthcoming ordinance would include a reservation for utility easement "in case" the city needs to place utilities there later, because staff had found no existing utilities in the disputed strip.

Ms. Townsend, a property owner who identified herself at the hearing, said the right-of-way runs through the front yard of one of the affected houses. "It is literally my front yard of that house," she told the council, adding that a prospective sale fell through after the title company flagged the issue and that the delay had "devastated me a little bit financially."

An online participant, who identified himself only as Matt, asked whether the right-of-way extended beyond the two parcels; Ruth said the title insurance company and the applicants were pursuing only the disputed portion and that researching other parcels would require additional work and likely separate applications.

No vote or ordinance was taken at the May 5 hearing. The public hearing record was opened and closed; staff said the council will consider an ordinance with a utility-easement reservation at a future meeting. Council members asked clarifying questions but did not direct additional work beyond the usual staff analysis for a vacation ordinance.

Details: Ruth reported historical widths in the area (Alder shown at 30 feet in older plats, 60 feet shown on later state plans after the state deeded back 30 feet in the 1980s). He said the disputed Highland Street segment is narrow and limited to the two parcels before the council. Ruth also noted the pedestrian-bridge location previously studied by engineers remains the preferred site and is not expected to be affected by this partial vacation.

The council closed the public hearing at 6:24 p.m. and scheduled further consideration of an ordinance at a later meeting.