Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates vacating part of Railroad Street but takes no final action
Summary
Council discussed an ordinance to vacate a portion of Railroad Street; staff and the city solicitor warned language that would exclude Norfolk Southern or otherwise benefit a single property owner could be legally problematic. The motion to advance the ordinance was not adopted and the item remained effectively tabled for future action.
The Lock Haven City Council spent extended time reviewing an ordinance that would vacate portions of Railroad Street, considering the legal and practical effects of vacating municipal right-of-way. City staff noted the item had been advertised and first read on July 10 and that it was previously tabled. Residents and council members questioned why the city would vacate a portion of roadway that would remain used by the public and asked who would maintain stormwater infrastructure if the section were vacated.
The city solicitor cautioned that language in section 1B of the draft ordinance could improperly exclude Norfolk Southern from a portion of the right-of-way and observed that a municipality cannot lawfully vacate public land solely to benefit a single property owner. Several council members echoed concerns that the ordinance as drafted may not achieve the city’s stated objectives and could lead to unresolved disputes among adjoining owners. Staff explained that under operation of law vacated street land typically reverts to adjoining owners and the city would stop maintenance for a vacated section; the ordinance also assigns responsibility for existing storm drains to the owner of the vacated portion.
A motion to take the ordinance from the table was moved and put to a roll-call-style vote; multiple council members recorded 'No' responses during the meeting’s final call on the motion and the item was not advanced to final adoption at this meeting. Council members asked that property-owner consent and solicitor review be clarified before the item is brought back.
