Mount Vernon planning commission recommends vacating small platted alley pending administrative review

The Mount Vernon Municipal Planning Commission on July 10 recommended vacating an undeveloped platted alley that lies between Vine Street, Oak Street, Boynton Street and Duke Street, but conditioned its recommendation on a final administrative review to resolve discrepancies in property descriptions.

The vote follows a petition from property owner Kathy Geppinger, who told the commission, “My name is Kathy Geppinger. My address is 1000 East Vine Street, Mount Vernon, Ohio, And I affirm that my testimony is truthful to the best of my knowledge and ability, so help me God.” Geppinger said she and her husband own parcels on both sides of the alley and seek to consolidate ownership ahead of a future sale.

Why it matters: vacation of a public alley changes access and property boundaries and must be recorded correctly before city council acts. Planning staff told the commission there are no city utilities in the strip under consideration, but staff also reported a mismatch between the city’s original recorded plat and the survey provided with the petition, prompting concern about how the right-of-way will be documented if the commission moves forward.

At the hearing, neighbor George Curry said he and his family oppose keeping the alley open, describing the area as essentially private yard: “That alley has never even came up in a question… The Gepijers have been good neighbors. We’ve raised the kids together on those 2 properties. It’s kind of like a park.” Curry said he has lived on Vine Street for about 50 years and asked that the alley be vacated.

Planning staff explained the recorded plat appears to date to the 1870s and that the legal description in the petition’s survey does not align with the plat dimensions. A staff speaker noted, “there are no utilities, no city utilities in the in that strip of land,” and recommended an administrative follow-up to ensure the final recorded description is correct before the item proceeds to city council.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the vacation “based or pursuant to final administrative review.” The motion was seconded and approved in a roll-call vote of five yes, zero no: Mayor Star (yes), Mr. Salyers (yes), Mrs. Ellsworth (yes), Mr. Hawkins (yes) and Mr. Swallow (yes). The commission’s approval is a recommendation; the vacation must still be recorded correctly and acted on by Mount Vernon City Council.

The commission directed staff to work with the applicants to reconcile the survey with the recorded plat and to confirm the legal description before the council filing. Applicants were told they will coordinate with administrative staff for the follow-up steps.

The commission closed the public portion of the hearing after receiving no written communications and no other public comments. The item will move to city council only after the administrative review is completed and staff confirms the recorded description.

Less critical detail: commissioners and staff flagged the mismatch between the petitioner’s survey dimensions and the recorded plat’s parcel widths (staff cited a plat width of about 141 feet 9 inches versus the survey’s larger measurement), and noted the plat references in county records (plat book reference cited during the meeting as Volume 390, page 666). The commission did not identify any city utilities or other infrastructure encumbrances in the alley strip.