Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fort Seneca Alley Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seneca County tables Fort Seneca alley vacation hearing pending legal review
Summary
A public hearing on a petition to vacate an abandoned alley in Fort Seneca was tabled so the board can obtain a prosecutor opinion and clarify township trustees' position; petitioners say the alley has been unused for decades and supplied signatures exceeding the 12-freeholder requirement.
FORT SENECA, Ohio — The Seneca County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 3 heard a public petition to vacate an alley adjacent to a Fort Seneca property but postponed a decision to gather additional legal guidance and confirmation of the township trustees’ stance.
The petitioners, represented at the hearing by Jay Diane West, said the alley has been unused for decades and that they submitted the required documentation and signatures. “We have filed the petitions, the paperwork, the plats, the whole thing,” West said, adding she could present 24 signatures involving 19 residences — twice the 12-freeholder threshold described in the county process.
Mark, a representative from the county engineer’s office who explained the vacation process to the commissioners, described multiple legal routes for vacating roads and alleys and stressed an important distinction: some historic streets exist as easements while subdivision alleys may be held in fee by township trustees. “When the township owns the ground … they would actually be giving up land, transferring it half to one side, half to the other side,” Mark said.
West and others cited a 21-year nonuse standard and House Bill 62 (2019) as part of their legal argument. West said petitioners believe the alley meets the abandonment standard. Mark and commissioners asked for clarity on how that statutory nonuse standard applies to alleys that were established under subdivision plats rather than to easement-based roads.
Commissioners said they needed a formal opinion from the county prosecutor and a clear statement from the township trustees before deciding. One commissioner summarized the approach: obtain the prosecutor’s advice and table the matter to a later advertised agenda date.
The board voted to table the hearing. Roll call recorded affirmative votes from Commissioners Paradiso, Busdekker and Frankert.
Next steps: the commissioners will request a formal prosecutor’s opinion, seek a resolution or statement from the township trustees about the trustees’ position, and set a future date to revisit the petition. Petitioners were told they may pursue additional legal remedies if required by statute and case law.
The commissioners did not make a final determination on the alley at the Feb. 3 meeting.
