Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bowling Green council holds public hearing on vacating part of Coleman Avenue
Summary
The Bowling Green City Council opened a public hearing on Ordinance 9344 to consider vacating a 145.2-foot segment of Coleman Avenue and reserving a perpetual utility easement; Planning Director Heather Sailor said staff and the Planning Commission support reserving utilities and recommended approval.
The Bowling Green City Council opened a public hearing on Ordinance 9344 to consider vacating a roughly 145-foot portion of Coleman Avenue while reserving a perpetual utility easement, officials said.
Planning Director Heather Sailor told the council the planning department received the petition on Dec. 18, 2025, from adjoining property owners Steven and Michelle O'Neil of 706 Birch Street seeking to vacate the dead-end portion of Coleman Avenue north of Birch Street. Sailor said the strip is about 50 feet wide and 145.2 feet long and contains overhead electric, a private driveway and a 6-inch cast-iron water line. "From a planning department perspective, we did see, you know, there is an advantage that someday, maybe 50 years from now, it could be extended, but that's highly unlikely," Sailor said, adding staff had no objections other than reserving a utility easement.
Sailor said the Planning Commission reviewed the petition on Jan. 7 and recommended approval. She said the petition packet includes photos and an aerial map showing the vacation request and identified the petitioners as the adjoining property owners, Steven and Michelle O'Neil.
Petitioner Steven O'Neil said he and his wife recently bought the house at 706 Birch Street and only afterward learned the city owned a portion of the driveway. "I didn't realize they actually owned a good portion of our driveway including the portion that goes down into our garage," O'Neil said, adding that the couple own parcels on both sides of the drive and want the vacation so they can more easily use the land and potentially place a shed.
A council member asked how long the easement had been unused; Sailor said the subdivision was platted in the early 1960s and the easement has been unused since about 1960. When asked whether vacating the right-of-way would revert the land to the petitioner, Sailor said yes — vacation would return the parcel to the adjoining owner, subject to the reserved utility easement.
No members of the public offered additional testimony and the chair closed the public hearing on Ordinance 9344; the council did not take a final vote during the hearing.
