Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies request to vacate portion of Orange Street right-of-way after neighbors raise access and freight concerns
Summary
After an extensive public hearing that included evidence from the applicant and neighbors, the council voted unanimously to deny a request to vacate a portion of Orange Street. Neighbors said vacating the right-of-way could hamper freight access and imperil future maintenance; applicant proposed easements but council declined.
Titusville City Council voted on Oct. 14 to deny a petition to vacate a portion of the Orange Street public right-of-way following a public hearing that drew the applicant's testimony and opposition from neighboring property owners.
Staff presented the application and explained that prior vacations and a reverter clause in historic records had made the parcel's ownership complicated. Planning staff noted agency objections and recommended denial. Applicant Bruce Moy said the property owner believed he owned the strip at closing and sought to regularize title and allow a small expansion of an existing building; Moy offered to grant easements for utility access and to maintain vehicular access, describing the proposal as a cleanup of a "messy situation." He said vacating the north portion or granting only a northern strip might address concerns while allowing him to build a modest addition.
Neighbors, including Mary Ballard, opposed vacation of the right-of-way, citing daily freight deliveries, forklift access and periodic use by cranes and large tractors. Ballard said her business receives regular large-truck deliveries and that vacating the road could shift maintenance responsibility and could lead to future access limitations.
Council members expressed concern about giving up public right-of-way, noting prior attempts to return vacated land to the city and the importance of preserving public access for utilities and freight. Member Stockel said title and recourse issues deserved attention but that waiving public right-of-way posed long-term planning risks. Vice Mayor Cole moved to deny the vacation; the motion carried unanimously.
What happens next: The right-of-way remains public. The applicant may pursue other remedies (title insurance claims or a variance to address nonconformities), but any future change to the right-of-way will require separate council action.
