Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council signals opposition to Miller Road street vacation after staff warns of procedural defects and takings risk
Summary
At a public hearing, city planners urged denial of a petition to vacate about 1,400 feet of Miller Road citing invalid signatures, conflict with the city street master plan and a potential Fifth Amendment takings liability; applicants said lack of maintenance and safety concerns prompted their request. A straw poll found no support in its present form.
City staff told the Middletown City Council on July 7 that a petition to vacate approximately 1,400 feet of Miller Road is procedurally deficient and conflicts with adopted plans, and staff recommended denying the request.
Claire Fedders Beneggar, city planner in the Community and Economic Development Department, told council the application lacked valid signatures from all abutting property owners as required under the Ohio Revised Code and that vacating the road would create two nonconforming parcels and conflict with the City of Middletown Street Master Plan. She said the city also faces "a Fifth Amendment taking claim" if the vacation were approved and that the Planning Commission had voted 6–0 to deny the petition. "Based on the information provided in the applicant's submission, staff recommends denial of the application," Beneggar said.
Property owners Tim and Megan Schmolly, who filed the petition, said the request stems from years of what they described as missing maintenance and public-safety problems on the road. "We've never been plowed, not once," Tim Schmolly told council, and the couple described repeated vandalism and late-night activity on adjacent vacant land near Miller Ridge Elementary.
A neighbor, Rebecca Pike, said she has lived on Miller Road for more than 40 years and supported the petition because of recurring illegal dumping, disorderly conduct and safety concerns near the school.
An attorney representing an 80-acre landowner opposed the petition, telling council the only ingress and egress to his client's parcel is Miller Road and warning that vacating the roadway "would preclude them from accessing their property" and could be compensable. The attorney urged council to follow the law department and planning commission recommendations to deny the request.
During deliberations council members acknowledged the neighbors' safety concerns and asked staff to coordinate with public works, public safety and the school district to address signage, fencing and enforcement regardless of the vacation outcome. Council then took a nonbinding straw poll to assess support for the street vacation "in its present form." Every council member who took the straw poll indicated they did not support the vacation as submitted.
The staff analysis, Planning Commission recommendation and council comments indicate that — while public-safety problems raised by residents will be addressed administratively — the petition faces significant procedural and planning obstacles that make approval unlikely without substantial revisions and additional consent from abutting owners. The matter remains pending; council conversations and the Planning Commission record will guide any next steps.
