Settlers Village Subdivision
AMBROSE,
I'ITZGERALD
&. CROOKSTON
Altorneys and
Counselofs
P.O. Box 427
Morldlan, Ideho
83642
relophoM B8ll-446 1
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
STIAN AND PAMELA WOOD
APPLICATION TO VACATE EASEMENT
SETTLERS VILLAGE SUBDIVISION
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
March 19, 1991~ at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner
appearing in person, the City Council of the City of Meridian
having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of public hearing on the vacation of the
walkway easement was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior
to the said public hearing scheduled for March 19, 1991, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the March 19, 1991,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That this property is located within the
City 0 f
Meridian and is described as Lot 7, Block 1, Settlers Village
Subdivision and is owned by Applicant; that the plat of the
subdivision shows an easement along the northern fifteen feet of
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&. CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Box 427
Meridian, Idaho
83642
relephone /l88-4461
the lot as a wal kway and for purposes of a permanent publ ic
utilities, irrigation and access easement; the plat also indicates
that a permanent barrier consisting of fencing, vegetation and
paved access way will be constructed within the easement.
3. That a similar easement existed in Lot 7, Block 2, which
was previously vacated.
4. That the property is located in an R-8 Residential
District and is so developed.
5. That Appl icant desires to vacate the easement for
purposes of access and as a walkway but does not desire to have
the easement vacated as to the utility or irrigation purposes.
6. That the Applicant testified that there has been no use
the easement along the northern potion of his lot for publ ic
access but that his neighbor to the north did use the easement for
access to the back of the property owned by the neighbor; that the
easement along the northern portion of the Applicantrs lot takes
up approximately 25% of the Applicantrs lot; that the Applicant
purchased the property not realizing the existence of the easement
and the easement was not placed on the Plat at his request but was
put on there at the request of a developer when he had the
property zoned commercial; that the failure to remove the easement
at the time the property was rezoned to commercial was due to the
fact that the developer had failed to requests its vacation and
removal at the time the developer request the similar easement to
be removed form Block 2.
7 .
That the purpose of the easement for access purposes was
initially included on the plat when lots 1 through seven of block
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&. CROOKSTON
Attorneys snd
Coun&lllof3
P.O. ao~ 427
Meridian, Idaho
83642
felephone 1lIIB-4461
one were zoned as commercial lots and the easement for access was
to provide access to the back of the lots if developed in a
commercial fashion; that the zoning was changed back from
commercial to residential but the walkway easement was not
removed.
8. That the utility companies and the irrigation companies
submitted comments which did not object to the vacation of the
easement as a walkway.
9. That Note 2 on the plat of the subdivision also
indicates that there is a 2 1/2 foot access easement along the
side lot lines of Lot 7, Block 1.
10. That the property surrounding the Applicant's is used
residentially.
11. That there was public testimony objecting to the
vacation of the easement; that the objections were from three
owners of lots to the north of the appl icant and were largely
based on the inability to obtain access to the back of their lots
if the easement as a public walkway and for access is vacated;
that the owners objecting would have access to the backs of their
lots through their own property if the easement is vacated.
12. That proper notice has been given as required by law
by Idaho Code, 50-1306A, have been given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of Idaho Code, 50-
1306A and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been
met.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
& CROOKSTON
Attorneys snd
Counselors
P.O. Bo~ 427
Meridian, Ideho
83642
ralophono 888-446t
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to vacate
easements pursuant to Idaho Code, 50-1306A.
3. That the vacation of the easement and the associated
easements as noted in note 2 on the plate for access and walkways
will not unduly burden those parties objecting to the vacation as
they will continue to have access to the back of their lots via
their own property
4. That the failure to vacate the easement would unduly
burden the Applicant and his property with public access that was
not designed for his lot as zoned residential.
5. That the easement1s use for irrigation and public
utilities will not be infringed upon by the vacation of the
easements for public access.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
Councilman Yerrington Voted 7f:
Counci lman Giesler Voted r
Councilman Myers Voted r
Counci lman Tolsma Voted ~
Mayor Kingsford (Tie Breaker) Voted