Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Township pauses Myrtle Avenue vacation after neighbor raises access, deed concerns
Summary
At a public hearing, the board heard a request to vacate an unopened portion of Myrtle Avenue to allow a property owner to build and access a new home; neighbors said vacating the street could remove their only access to a separately deeded parcel. The board agreed to seek additional planning input before considering an ordinance.
A public hearing on vacating an unopened portion of Myrtle Avenue drew testimony from the property owner and a nearby landholder, and prompted the Muhlenberg Township Board of Commissioners to delay any final action while officials gather more information.
Solicitor Bridal Kasky opened the hearing and entered exhibits for the record, including a letter from the applicant's attorney dated 06/25/2026 and proof of publication in the Reading Eagle on 07/05/2026 and 07/12/2026. Attorney Steven Price, representing property owner Rolando Vasquez, described the unopened paper street and said Vasquez bought the lot, intends to build a house and asked the township to vacate the unopened portion so he may stone it and maintain access.
Price told the board he observed no regular public use of the unopened segment and that deeds he examined did not extend to a street centerline, which — in his view — shows the avenue is unused. Vasquez, sworn for testimony, said he had provided survey plans and discussed his work with some neighbors but acknowledged he had not spoken with all adjacent owners.
Neighbor Tammy Cameron, who identified herself and two parcels she owns including a separately deeded lot with a pole building at 8985 Myrtle Avenue, told the board she uses Myrtle Avenue as the only access to that parcel and said vacating the street could impede access and future sales. Cameron said she would consult counsel about the potential impact.
Solicitor Kasky explained that vacating a public street ordinarily requires an ordinance, that title typically reverts to abutting owners only up to the centerline, and that recording access easements or a shared right-of-way would likely be necessary to preserve access for affected parcels.
After questions about whether the matter needed a planning commission recommendation, the board agreed more information was warranted. Commissioners said they would consider routing the request through the planning process because it is a recommending body and that any ordinance would require advertisement; the board concluded the hearing and scheduled further consideration, with a draft ordinance to follow after additional review.
No vote to vacate was taken at the hearing; commissioners said the matter would return when staff and planning input are available.
