Minutes 09/30/1929 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 30,1929 The third ~le is that the discretion of the munici?~l authorities in vacating a street or alle~wilt not be controlled or interfered with b~ the courts Unless there is a plain case or abuse or there has been frau~c'ollu~on. These three rules dc no~ alwys harmonize, however,-and there is considerable confliot in the opinions as to when the vacation of a street can be said to be for a private purpose so as tb authorize the courts to interfere. It seems that the mere fact that the land reverts to the abutting land owners for their private use does not show that the ~acation was for a private as distinguished from a public ourpose. Nor the mere fact that the vacation was granted on the petition of a private person doe~ not invalidate the proceedings. As to what are public as distinguished from private ourposes, an eminent legal author has said, 'The abolition of grade crossings, the construction-of railroad depots and terminals~ and the re-a~rangement of streets to secure a~ore regular and harmonious system, are public purposes for which the power of vacation may be oroperly exercised. So where the v~cation is for public or cuasi-public buildings and grounds~, Lewis Eminent Domain, 3rd Ed. Se0t~on BOg, Page 398. ~ The true rule seems to be that a municSpality cannot vacate a street or a part thereof for the sole purpose of b '~' ' enefz~ng an ~out~ing owner, and that the power to vacate streets cs~not be exercised in an a~bi%rary manner, without regard to the interest and comzenience of public or individual riEhts; but that the mmuicipality may vacate a street on tiz~petition of'an abutter for his benefit where the vacation is also for the benefit of the public at large, i.e., where the use to which the vacated part of the street is to be put is of more benefit to the community than the retention of such land as a wa)- for the street. The City Council then is_ confronted with the question as to whether it is a benefit to close the end of the alley leading into Oommerce Street and turn it to the west into Mount Vernon Avenue. If th~ council should determine to do this, only the person who receives some special amd pecutia= damage or injury, to himself, as distinguished from dams~e or injury to ~he general public,, can object. (Payne v. Godwin 147 Va. I have appended hereto a diagram of the block showing the names of the various owners of the land. Yours very truly, R. C. BARCLAY, City Attorney." Mr. Stewar~ moved that the following resolution be adopted in connection with this matter: "The Council hereby agrees that if and when the Old Dominion. Table Works gets the signature~ and agreement of the abutting property owners on the alley running North and South between Mt. Vernon & Broad St., from Portland to Con~mnerce, they will then by ordinance change the course of the alley, opening the said alley into Mt. Vernon Ave.~ The resolution was adopted, and by the following vote: Ayes-- Brooks, Dunford, Maupin, Oast, Stewart, Ogg, 6. The following ordi~muoe, which had been placed on first reading by Council September 24th, was, on motion~ laid on the table: An Ordinance to close thaz portion .of the alley lying between Broad Street and Mount Vernon Avenue, extending from Commerce Street to a point distant 185 feet sou~h thereof. On motion, adjourned.