street vacation signatures required by neighbors?

[Washwo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? wa

"A petition by abutting property owners to initiate a city street vacation must be signed by more than two-thirds of the owners,.."

will someone explain how to do the math on this? two-thirds is calculated in what way?

 

[FarmerJ]

the city can tell you for example if that means x number of feet from the street to be vacated or if it it means all the homes on specific blocks like say one block each side of the street to be possibly vacated.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? wa

"A petition by abutting property owners to initiate a city street vacation must be signed by more than two-thirds of the owners,.."

will someone explain how to do the math on this? two-thirds is calculated in what way?

**A: it basically means the majority of the owners.

 

[Zigner]

**A: it basically means the majority of the owners.

Nope. Majority (without further modification of the word) is 50%+1

ETA: OP's situation requires 66.666666....7% of the owners.

 

[HomeGuru]

Nope. Majority (without further modification of the word) is 50%+1

ETA: OP's situation requires 66.666666....7% of the owners.

**A: what? How can 66.666666 be 7%.

 

[Washwo]

This concerns one piece of unopened alley, say 200feet long, by 30feet. On one long side is a neighbor A, on the other side is neighbor B, and on one end is neighbor C, and the other short end is the continuation of the alleyway that is open. Can neighbor A buy it without signatures from the other two?

How does the 2/3rds work? this is the wording on the city's website:

"A petition by abutting property owners to initiate a city street vacation must be signed by more than two-thirds of the owners,.."

 

[154NH773]

I'm just winging it here, but I'd say that 2/3 of owners of property actually touching the street would have to sign the petition. That would be one signature per property abutting (touching) the street. I would agree that the number would have to be rounded to the next higher whole integer. It is possible that the local ordinance defines "abutting" differently, and may include properties within a set distance, or could also include properties served in some way by the street in question. So, you must determine the local definition of abutting. If it is only properties touching the street in question, and there are only three, then all would have to sign in order to be "more than" 2/3 (Two signers would only be 2/3, not "more than 2/3").

My question is; what is the next step in the process of vacating the street? Will a public hearing take place? If you object, do you have recourse to appeal a decision to a local board or court?
Once the street is vacated (assuming it eventually is) would it have to be sold at public auction, or would the property revert to the abutting landowners. I've seen both scenarios.

 

[Isis1]

**A: what? How can 66.666666 be 7%.

lol!! the 66.666666666(continuous to whatever)....7% <---all one number.

 

[Washwo]

Is this "2/3 rule" completely random at the whim of each city? Is there not a definition that is consistent throughout a state?

If owners on either side, each with 50% of the frontage, and one wants it, can they ignor the other owner?

RCW 35.79.010
Petition by owners -- Fixing time for hearing.
The owners of an interest in any real estate abutting upon any street or alley who may desire to vacate the street or alley, or any part thereof, may petition the legislative authority to make vacation, giving a description of the property to be vacated, or the legislative authority may itself initiate by resolution such vacation procedure.

The petition or resolution shall be filed with the city or town clerk, and, if the petition is signed by the owners of more than two-thirds of the property abutting upon the part of such street or alley sought to be vacated, legislative authority by resolution shall fix a time when the petition will be heard and determined by such authority or a committee thereof, which time shall not be more than sixty days nor less than twenty days after the date of the passage of such resolution.

 

[ecmst12]

If there are only 2 owners and each owns exactly 50% of the property in question, then yes it certainly sounds like the one who does NOT agree with the petition wins. 50% is less than 2/3. If there are only 2 owners but one of them owns 75% of the property in question, then if that owner is in favor of the petition, that owner wins...because he owns more than 2/3 of the PROPERTY, and that is what the statute specifies (2/3 of the property not 2/3 of the number of owners).

 

[HomeGuru]

lol!! the 66.666666666(continuous to whatever)....7% <---all one number.

**A: really fuzzy and fussy math.

 

[154NH773]

The petition or resolution shall be filed with the city or town clerk, and, if the petition is signed by the owners of more than two-thirds of the property abutting upon the part of such street or alley sought to be vacated, legislative authority by resolution shall fix a time when the petition will be heard

That's different than you originally said, and I agree it appears that the owner(s) of 2/3 of the abutting property (however that is defined) could trigger the need for a hearing. But remember, regardless of whether the petition is successful, there still needs to be a hearing. It's not a given that the road will be vacated.

What about the third owner at the end of the street? If his property abuts the end of the street he has "frontage" also.

Check with the town to find out how the town will dispose of the land if they vacate the street. It may have to be sold at auction, or it may revert to the abutters under some formula for distribution.

Does anyone else make use of the street besides the three you have mentioned? Who else may have standing to object at the hearing?

 

[Terminus]

Interesting Read

I am working with some homeowners on a similar, but opposite situation. The land owners wanted a right of way (street) conveyed to the town for maintenance, etc. The town required 2/3 signatures on a petition to initiate the process of investigating the transference of the right of way to the town. Once the town investigated the situation, 100% of the abutting land owners had to agree with the conveyance (in my situation one owner objected and the case was dead).

One thing to remember with vacation of right of ways by municipalities....just because the municipality has vacated their right to the right of way doesn't mean that abutting properties have given up their right to to use the right of way. Here in North Carolina, the Dept. of transportation stance is that while they may vacate their interest in a road bed....abutting land owners reserve the right to continue using the right of way.....and what was vacated in reality is just the general public's right to use the right of way.

 

[Washwo]

Well, IF the abutting land owner has the underlying fee under the city's easement, as I understand it, no notice of any kind is needed. They OWN the fee and the easement can be lifted by the city, and the ownership can be "returned" to the abutting property owner.

If it's an unopened piece of land, with no one using it, it seems like a no brainer...he pays the fees and he moves his lot line to embrace his new land..and starts paying taxes on it.

No one has any rights because he owns the underlying fee right?

 

[154NH773]

Well, IF the abutting land owner has the underlying fee under the city's easement, as I understand it, no notice of any kind is needed. They OWN the fee and the easement can be lifted by the city, and the ownership can be "returned" to the abutting property owner.

That would be correct, however; if the road is a necessary right-of-way to any of the abutting properties, then an inferred easement belongs to those properties that may not be extinguished by the town alone.

You have asked us to advise, but you have not provided all the information, or have changed the information provided. Anything we say is just speculation on the information provided We don't even know your position in this. Do you want to prevent the vacation of the street, or are you the person trying to obtain the vacation and get the property?

I would advise getting a "good" local lawyer to ask these questions of, and do more research into the ownership of the underlying property and the nature of any easements.