been working in a specific area off and on for over a decade now.?ÿ couple different clients, the latest one being a guy who is, basically, buying up everything in sight for the sake of a longer range redevelopment.?ÿ?ÿ
in the part of town that, a century ago, was effectively designated the black part of town and (very literally) the city council enacted some reshuffling work to organize Austin into racially sequestered areas.?ÿ not surprisingly, this part of town long suffered from inferior municipal services in terms of infrastructure, utilities, engineering, etc... and this would seem to even extend to the preponderance of subdivision plats in this area that reveal themselves as mathematical quagmires.
anyways, in the process of preparing exhibits for the client to apply for a section of street to be vacated.?ÿ interestingly enough, this street exists (unlabeled) on one of the original city plats, wherein a note at the bottom states that all streets excepting two (not important here) are 80 feet in width.?ÿ 1937 plat subdivides the tract lying on the east right-of-way line of said street, but now calls the street 60 feet.?ÿ 1945 plat lies along the west right-of-way line of said street, also calls it 60 feet.?ÿ (city now recognizes and claims the note in the original 1840 city plat is in error, and that the 80 foot width should be ignored.)?ÿ so, like i said, i've done work all up and down and around this street for a decade now, and i xref in all that old boundary and, lo and behold, the street called 80 feet in 1840 and 60 feet in 1937 and 1945 is, in fact, occupied and monumented as something not quite 50 feet.?ÿ blocks of this- parallel streets constructed in both directions, evidence of old lines of occupation, old aerials that agree.?ÿ but- as you can probably guess- nary even a hint that anyone has heretofore addressed this issue.?ÿ city is clueless.
so, what does your client attempt to get vacated??ÿ 48-49.7 feet of right-of-way, or the full 60? (or 80?) in this particular case it's not likely to make too much difference as he already owns both sides of the street.?ÿ however, either the work now effectively becomes determining where that 60 feet actually lies (yes, i've looked thorougly, believe me) and re-establishing those lines, which could- in theory- end up causing headaches for numerous (dozens) of neighbors fronting each side of the remainder of this street, or else leave the client with the possibility of having only vacated 65-85% of a public right-of-way.
I hate to mention it, but have you checked with Kent?
I remember several projects he shared with "variable R/W" as a major item.?ÿ In my memory Kent had a line on the archived (way?ÿback) city council's minutes.?ÿ He found therein the rectification of extremely similar circumstances.
It's worth a shot.?ÿ If he's spending the night in Marfa he'd probably welcome a call.
Vacate "all of street x between blocks y and z". I love solving puzzles but sometimes practical is better...
Shoot.?ÿ I have a County GIS department pressing a street vacation issue with a small city.?ÿ I asked the question first.?ÿ Has it been vacated, yes or no.?ÿ They were showing it as vacated for some reason but there is absolutely nothing backing that up in the records.?ÿ They then called the city office.?ÿ The city called back to report it was, in fact, an open road.?ÿ Then someone must have driven by and decided it must be closed because its the driveway to Mr. Smith's house and he maintains it and he is not inside the city limits.?ÿ Then I tell the GIS gals that it can't simply be his driveway as his main tract would have no connection to receive extra turf by vacating the street.?ÿ It would go to the two adjoiners who would have to deed their interests to him.?ÿ Now the GIS crew is pushing the city to prove it was vacated or they will go back to showing it as an open road (Dead ends after 150 feet at the edge of Mr. Smith's property)
Vacate "all of street x between blocks y and z".
That??s it exactly.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Gift that keeps on giving:
If he's spending the night in Marfa he'd probably welcome a call.
Is he out visiting the old Giant set?
He may be under some regulatory restrictions that keep him from doing that. I've been beating my head against the vacation issue with the locals for a couple of decades now. They seem to believe there is more authority invested in the local commissions and councils than they actually have. One thing the city does is charge for a vacation based on sq. footage. The county doesn't.?ÿ
The city requires a metes and bounds survey to vacate and charge $2 per Sq/Ft,,,,,,,,,I'm not kidding. Usually that negates vacations which are normally applied for is less desirable parts of town. The county also requires a metes and bounds or centerline survey of a vacation, however they don't charge for the land.?ÿ
So here if the street is 80ft wide or 48 feet wide and in town the width would be a huge item. The cost would shrink with the width.?ÿ
?ÿ
If I were the adjacent owner I would tell them to stuff their ridiculous fees where the Sun don't shine and go ahead and use the area for lawn or shrubbery of relatively inexpensive improvements.?ÿ If the block is 300 feet long and the street is 80 feet wide that would be $48000 to the city plus your cost?
Yep, and think about this, if you request a street vacation and only get 1/2 the street, do you need to pay for the entire vacation?
first, "all of Harvey Street between _________ Street and ___________ Ave." is never going to fly around here.?ÿ heck, I have to one call it and do an as-built of the area just to prove there isn't a monument to Jebediah Austin (Stephen F's step-nephew) or a wastewater main running through the proposed vacated area.?ÿ this is about the 20th time i've done one of these in Austin (it's one of two i'm doing for this same client right now, as a matter of fact), and it's gotten progressively dumber (and more expensive) each time.
second, good luck telling the COA to stuff it.?ÿ again, the client owns both sides of the street, so will effectively be assembling a single tract out of the results of the vacation- going from two awkwardly shaped, relatively useless tracts to a single, much more lucrative piece of property.
but moe is getting to exactly a potential snag i see- even if the client gets both sides (and yes, it will likely cost that much, exalted bovine), if the thing has been 60' (minimum) on paper for 175 years, does vacating only 49' or so leave client open to future problems??ÿ with this city, i'd just about bet on it.?ÿ?ÿ
anyways, the attorney who's been massaging my posterior surfaces for this description and exhibit is nowhere to be found the last couple of days since i raised this issue.?ÿ so that's also fun.
Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above
Don't fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don't fence me in
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever, but I ask you please
Don't fence me in
Any street vacation begins with a utility survey, letters of acceptance from an approved list of local utilities and stake holders such as the fire and rescue agencies. It becomes a process that is expensive, time consuming and during COVID very frustrating since offices are often closed. One call balks at locates for this type of survey so it's private locators which send me a pass through invoice. They usually are cheaper in the long run. One call is so time consuming compared to the?ÿ private locator that it ends up cheaper to pay instead of the "free" one call.?ÿ
@holy-cow i remember reading somewhere that cole porter hated that song- said it was the worst thing he'd written.?ÿ lmao.