Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council closes hearing and approves vacating 60‑foot platted street adjacent to lots 877–892
Summary
The Taylor City Council opened and closed a public hearing and approved vacating a 60‑foot platted street adjacent to lots 877–892 (retaining utility easements). Petitioner said the vacate will allow redevelopment; staff described the road as unimproved city property with speculative development plans.
The Taylor City Council voted to vacate a 60‑foot platted street adjacent to lots 877 through 892 while retaining all utility easements.
Councilwoman Winn moved to open the public hearing, and Councilwoman Daniels supported the motion. Tim Bolchow of CEC, representing the client Shotstein Property Group, said the petitioner “is looking to vacate the right of way, which runs through land that they own” to make the parcel developable for a proposed commercial shopping center. Staff confirmed the street is unimproved city property and that vacating would transfer rights that would be split between adjacent parcels and remove the city’s maintenance obligation.
Council members asked for and reviewed survey maps and aerial cues to confirm the precise parcels affected (council discussion referenced Eureka Road, Syracuse Street and nearby landmarks such as Belle Tire and the Baptist Church). Staff said the request is speculative and that no development plans had yet been filed, but noted that vacating the platted street is typically a prerequisite for redevelopment submissions.
Hearing no members of the public wishing to speak, Councilwoman Witten moved to close the hearing; Councilman Johnson supported the motion and the closure carried. Councilman Bridal then moved to approve the vacate (retaining utility easements); the motion was supported by Councilman Johnson and carried on the floor.
Next steps for the petitioner typically include filing formal development plans and any required site‑plan approvals with the city. The motion carries the condition that all utility easements remain in place.
