AGENDA #5b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Right-of-Way Closure Request
DATE: March 27, 2000
This report responds to a request received by the Council on February 14 to close an unimproved section of right-of-way at the end of Forest Hills Road. A copy of the request is attached and the section of right-of-way in question is shown on the attached map.
Mr. Markus J. Steiner, who lives at 225 Forest Hills Road, requested that the Council consider closing the unimproved right-of-way at the end of Forest Hills Road that runs along his property line. Access to the Steiner property is now provided through this right-of-way via a short gravel and dirt roadway which has never been accepted by the Town for maintenance because it does not meet Town standards. Mr. Steiner would like to control access to and use of this section of right-of-way by closing it to public use.
This right-of-way is shown on Orange County Tax Map #7.24F. Please see attached map.
Under State law, G.S. 160A-299, a public hearing and prior notices to adjacent property owners are necessary before closing a right-of-way. Under the statute, the Council may close the right-of-way upon determining that:
“closing the street or alley is not contrary to the public interest, and that no individual owning property in the vicinity of the street or alley or in the subdivision in which it is located would thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his property.”
If the right-of-way is closed, ownership would revert to the adjacent property owners in accord with State law. A copy of G.S. 160A-299 is attached.
After receiving Mr. Steiner’s request, the Town staff conducted a preliminary investigation. We believe that the Town’s interests would not be adversely affected if this right-of-way was closed. In accordance with the States Statute that regulates right-of-way closures, the land would revert to private ownership in equal shares to adjacent properties. Unless separate arrangements were made between adjacent owners, closing the right-of-way would not result in control of the land by only one owner. Because the key objective for the Steiners was to control access to the entire section of right-of-way, they have elected to withdraw their request to close the right-of-way at this time.
Based on our preliminary investigation we believe closure of the right-of-way would not be contrary to the public interest. However, at this time there is no agreement between the abutting property owners to convey all of the land within the right-of-way to the Steiners. Therefore, the Steiners would be unable to control access to this land and have withdrawn their request at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council take no action at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1.) Map
2.) Steiner request dated January 26, 2000
3.) Copy of State Statute 160A-299