Good evening.

We will call to order the New Albany City Council for a public hearing to discuss Z 2603, an ordinance for the vacation of a public way pursuant to a petition filed by Robert Wheat and reservation of permanent utility easement for this time and place.

Just to kind of give an introductory comment, obviously there's a process for which state statute requires us to go through from a legislative standpoint.

We just finished a committee meeting of the public court committee.

This is a public hearing to hear from the public on this matter.

You do not have to sign in for this opportunity.

If you want to speak during the council meeting on the issue, there is a sign-up sheet for you to sign in at that time.

That being said, I will open the public hearing for individuals who would like to be heard on this.

You try to hold your points to new items.

That way we can move as quickly as possible through the public hearing and into uh what would be our regular council session.

So that being said, is there anyone who would like to come forward for uh the public hearing on this matter?

I'll wait until this young lady gets done signing in.

Trying to finish up.

Okay.

All right.

So is there any again?

Is there anyone for the public hearing that would like to come forward?

All right.

Just state your name and uh address for the record, uh, and uh you can begin your comments.

Justin Andres, young Lynn Anderson Craft, 126 West Spring Street, New Albany, Indiana.

I'm here uh on behalf of Discovery Developers, who has recently, as you I'm sure all know, has a primary PLAT approval from November of 2025.

So November 18th Plan Commission approved a preliminary plat uh for discovery developers that is just uh contiguous to the proposed vacation.

Really, while we're here, I I believe there's a hundred and two-year-old alleyway that was platted on a publicly recorded plat and is an alleyway that's been in existence for 102 years.

The vacation happens to occur soon after that the uh opponents uh failed to appeal the plan commission's approval.

Um this is a second or third bite at the Apple to uh disagree with the Plan Commission's approval and my client's vested rights to that.

So November 18th, it was approved.

December 18th is the time for judicial review under the 1600 series of the Planning Commission statutes.

It requires an exclusive review to go to judicial review to the court within 30 days, if not they waive them.

So they've waived them.

They did file a declaratory judgment action in February a couple months late, but uh and that is pending in the plant commission is a party to that, I believe.

Um but because their judicial view is review is likely foreclosed because of the untimely filing among other things, they filed a petition to vacate.

And in their proposed vacation of the alleyway, it it in fact uh the preliminary plant that's approved has a one-way street that goes out and uses a portion of this alleyway that was approved and is a vested right in my client.

So under the vacation statute and the ordinance that they have uh filed under 3673 13B, it says that the body considering this shall deny the petition when there's no other convenient or reasonable means of ingress or egress.

And this, according to their own petition, the the uh preliminary class uses this as ingress and egress.

So not only forget the fact that this is a contested uh vacation, but this cuts off everybody's access for a hundred and two-year-old easement that's existed, or excuse me, right of way that's in a plat that's been in existence for a long time and not disturbed.

So it cuts off everybody's access, but also here, in fact, again, the statute's clear, you cannot approve.

It says you shall deny when it restricts that access, and their own judicial review petition acknowledges that that is part of that approval.

So the um we appreciate your consideration, but we do ask that you deny the vacation of the plat as uh both violation of the vested rights and required by the statute.

Uh and quite frankly, it's just not good policy to vacate uh contested uh platted access uh that has been in existence for a long period of time.

So if you have any questions, I'll be here.

My client is here as well if you'd like any uh clarification of anything, but thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to come forward to speak on this proposed matter?

Come on forward, say it's your name and address for the record.

My name is Dean Wheat.

Uh Robert Weed on this piece of paper, uh 2033 DePaul Avenue, New Albany, Indiana.

Uh we don't have an attorney here.

We're so please give me a little lad too.

I'm making this jump from roofer to attorney in 2.5 seconds.

Good five.

Uh and I'm really glad to see the buyer camp here, but I'm I'm confused on why.

Because this is a city issue, and a George Daniels issue.

Now, I've been at my residence for 48 years.

George, which you couldn't get him up here if you set some dynamite under his butt.

He's been in his residence at 47 years.

And he has maintained that area that uh grassy area, what we call an alley, we didn't even know it was an alley.

We always call that George's yard.

And until this came up, we didn't know about what a vacation even was, that that was an alley or anything.

So for us to vacate this or bring this before you before all this come to light, uh we didn't know it was a thing, but now we know it's a thing, so we're going to try to vacate this alley and give it to the man that it properly belongs to George.

Now, by all rights, it's an alley on paper.