The applicant, Ms. Elizabeth Colligan, resides at 6049 Oleander Avenue which abuts Tasmin Lane, a 15 foot Right-of-Way (ROW). In 2000, the previous owner of 6049 Oleander Avenue obtained a right-of-way permit from the City to build a driveway in the ROW. The driveway was installed. The current owner, Mrs. Colligan, purchased the property in 2010.
The adjacent property that also abuts Tasmin Lane is owned by Mr. Donald Burdick. He has obtained a permit to construct a single family house utilizing Tasmin Lane as access to his driveway. Mr. Burdick’s home is currently under construction.
Ms. Colligan does not desire to share a driveway with Mr. Burdick and is requesting a vacation of Tasmin Lane. If granted she will obtain half, or 7 ½ feet, and Mr. Burdick will obtain the other half as required by State Statute 177.085.
|
May 23, 1923
|
The Old Grove Subdivision is platted.
|
|
December 6, 2000
|
Margaret Paschal obtained a permit from the City to construct a driveway in the ROW.
|
|
November 19, 2020
|
Elizabeth & Joseph Colligan purchase 6049 Oleander Avenue (The recorded deed does not include the driveway located in the ROW).
|
|
August 31, 2018
|
Donald H Burdick purchases 6061 Oleander Avenue.
|
|
July 7, 2020
|
Mr. Burdick applies for a building permit for a single family house utilizing Tasmin Lane as access to his driveway. City issues permit.
|
|
October 27, 2020
|
Mrs. Colligan submits an application to vacate Tasmin Lane.
|
The only abutting landowners to Tasmin Lane are Mr. Burdick and Mrs. Colligan. Mr. Burdick has expressed opposition to the vacation due to a negative impact on access to his new home. Duke Energy is requesting an easement for their use and City Public Works has also asked for a utility easement to run the entire length of the ROW.
On December 3, 2020, the Development Review Committee reviewed the case and found there was no public benefit in vacating the ROW and recommended denial of the request. On December 17, 2020, the Land Development Review Board reviewed the issue and found there was no public benefit in vacating the ROW and recommended denial of the request as well.