This project is completed and we got away with not really needing to define it, but it has been bugging me. Wouldn't TL 2700 get to the centerline of the vacated roadway? How did someone sell a portion of the vacated Right-Of-Way? Just a strange one I though would be a good discussion.
There are probably as many rules controlling the sale of small parcels as there are stars in the sky.
To answer the question of how it's possible to grant TL2700 that strip it would be necessary to know the history behind the creation of the street and how dedications are treated locally. Then you will need to understand local requirements for small parcel grants.
For starters, Fairview Avenue was constructed in its realigned configuration by 1994, and this survey in support of formalizing the right of way reconfiguration is dated 5 years later. The story is not going to be a pretty one.
As for why TL2700 did not acquire reversionary right to the centerline - I'd have to see the document that created TL2700 in the first place, the document that vacated the right of way, and the vesting deeds of the day for all the properties involved.
Time, Time, is the answer. If what is now TL2700 was owned by the same people who owned all those other lots, then the vacating of the street would go in total to those owners (maybe one person). Then, when somebody wanted what is now TL2700, they were able to negotiate to acquire that 10 foot strip of vacated street. It could have been one foot or eleven feet or all of it. I note the deed is dated 1998 and the survey is dated 1999.
