Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission conditionally approves easement vacation at 103 24th Ave; parties must resolve sewer dispute
Summary
The commission considered a request from the Peza family to vacate a 3‑foot platted easement at 103 24th Avenue to allow new construction. The commission approved a revised resolution conditioned on execution and recording of an agreement resolving sewer service for the adjacent property; later the commission moved to reconsider and continued the item to Feb. 10 for follow‑up.
A request to vacate a 3‑foot platted easement at the rear of Lots 5 and 6 (103 24th Avenue) produced a detailed public discussion on Jan. 27 after staff and neighbors raised an unresolved private sewer‑connection dispute.
Staff presentation and condition: Planner Brandon Berry presented the vacation request from property owners Mike and Gina Peza. Letters of no conflict were issued by active utilities, but neighboring owners (the Gallahers) said their sewer lateral has been tied into the Pezas’ line for decades and argued a prescriptive easement exists. City staff revised the proposed resolution to include a delayed effective date: the resolution would not become effective until an executed, recorded agreement resolving relocation or maintenance of the Gallahers’ sewer service was recorded with Pinellas County.
Public testimony: Adjacent property owners and attorneys described a factual dispute over a sewer connection, unpermitted cutting of a line by demolition contractors, and contested proposals for relocating service to Passagrille Way. Both sides told the commission they preferred to resolve the matter cooperatively, but counsel explained the dispute could require circuit court resolution if agreement is not reached.
Commission action and subsequent reconsideration: The commission initially approved the amended resolution with the condition tying the effective date to a recorded sewer‑service agreement (roll call recorded as 3–2 in favor). After further procedural discussion later in the meeting, the commission voted to reconsider the prior action and continued the item to the Feb. 10 meeting to allow the parties time to reach an agreement or present further documentation.
Why this matters: Vacation of a recorded easement can interfere with ongoing utility or drainage access and can expose the city to liability if sewer service is disrupted. Staff and city attorney advised caution and made the recorded‑agreement condition central to the approved motion. The continuation gives the parties a short window to resolve the private dispute and produce the recorded agreement required by the resolution.
