Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners decline to vacate three small right‑of‑way parcels near Lacunas Lake
Summary
A petition to vacate three unimproved right‑of‑way parcels adjacent to wetlands near Lacunas Lake failed to advance; commissioners cited future public‑use concerns and the motion to vacate died for lack of a second, followed by a motion to deny the petition that passed.
A petition to vacate three small parcels of unimproved right‑of‑way near Lacunas Lake drew extended discussion on Dec. 15 and ultimately failed to secure approval from the Starke County Board of Commissioners.
Adam Swarden, representing three property owners including Mark White and William Briggs, asked the board to vacate the unimproved right‑of‑way so petitioners could avoid future setback variances and make modest property improvements. He said the affected area contains delineated wetlands and that larger neighboring landowners had been notified and had not remonstrated at an earlier council public hearing.
Commissioners debated future public needs, eminent‑domain ability to reclaim right‑of‑way if needed later, whether leasing the parcels to non‑profits could preserve public interest, and the fairness of granting the land to owners on one side of the easement. A motion to move forward with vacating the parcels was made but died for lack of a second. Commissioners then moved to deny the petition; that motion carried by voice vote.
Why it matters: vacating dedicated right‑of‑way transfers maintenance and tax responsibilities and can limit future public options for roads or utilities. Commissioners emphasized that vacating small, unused parcels is procedurally allowed but cautioned about giving away land that might be needed later for public improvements.
Next steps: staff said the formal instrument to complete a vacation would be an ordinance with legal description, publication and recording if the board had approved it. Because the petition was denied, no ordinance drafting or recording will proceed.
Ending note: commissioners stressed that petitioners bear publication and filing costs for a vacation petition; the board may revisit similar petitions if circumstances change.
