New Albany City Council Public Works Committee Meeting - July 16, 2026
New Albany City Council Public Works Committee Meeting - July 16, 2026
The Public Works Committee of the New Albany City Council met on July 16, 2026, to consider an ordinance for the vacation of a public way (an alley) pursuant to a petition filed by Robert Wheat, along with a reservation of permanent utility easement. After discussion of the legal merits, pending litigation, and concerns about property access, the committee voted unanimously to move the ordinance to the full council without a recommendation and recommended it be tabled pending further legal review.
Discussion Items
- Councilman Fitzgerald, sponsor of the ordinance, explained that residents on DePaul Avenue had requested the vacation of a 20-foot-wide alley section extending from DePaul Avenue to the rear property line of 2035 DePaul Avenue. He stated that the vacation would help with tree preservation and natural landscaping issues, and that the alley is currently unpaved with mature trees.
- City Attorney Corey Manning provided legal analysis: she had not yet reviewed the original petition to verify statutory compliance; the exhibit in the proposed ordinance was not entirely clear and appeared to be outdated; and she received a letter from Discovery Builders' attorneys flagging legal issues. She noted that a lawsuit filed by Mr. Wheat challenging the preliminary plat approval (which includes this alley for ingress/egress) is pending. Manning advised that acting on the vacation while litigation is ongoing could create legal risk, and recommended waiting for the court's resolution.
- Justin Members (attorney for Discovery Builders) commented on the litigation timeline: the declaratory judgment petition was filed February 3rd, but the judicial review of preliminary plat approval (November 18th) was required within 30 days (by December 18th), so he anticipated a motion to dismiss would be filed within 60-90 days, based on the statute of limitations. He argued that the vacation request is essentially a third attempt to oppose the approved subdivision.
- Councilman Scott expressed concerns that vacating the alley would cut off access to a larger parcel of property, removing rights from the property owner, regardless of the proposed development. He questioned the purpose of the committee if it simply passes items forward without thorough vetting.
- The committee chair suggested that the proper course is to move the ordinance to the full council for further consideration, as the committee's role is to vet the legislative vehicle, and that the council could then decide to table or recommit. After clarifying procedural options, a motion was made to recommend the ordinance to the full council with the understanding that it should be tabled for further legal review and examination of the petition.
Key Outcomes
- The committee voted unanimously (3 ayes, 0 nays) to recommend the ordinance to the full New Albany City Council, neutrally and without a recommendation, and indicated that the council should table the item pending completion of legal review (including verification of the petition and assessment of the pending lawsuit).
- The committee meeting was adjourned, after which a public hearing on the ordinance was scheduled to begin at 6:45 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. We will call the order of the public works committee meeting of the New Albany City Council. We have on our agenda tonight one ordinance that has been uh forwarded to the committee. Uh that is an ordinance for the vacation of a public way percent to a petition filed by Robert Wheat and reservation of permanent utility easement. Um this is I believe being sponsored by Mr. Fitzgerald who is in the back room. Uh make sure he knows that we're starting. Uh here he is. Perfect timing, Mr. Fitzgerald. Um and um with us, of course, we have our city council uh attorney, uh Miss Corey Manning, uh, as well as uh I believe some uh members uh who have expressed interest uh in this uh docket item for uh today. Um currently on the schedule, let me just say as way of introduction, we have gone ahead and scheduled this for public hearing at 645. We have also uh slated this for second reading, but that's a contingent on the action of this committee. Um Mr. Fitzgerald, you being here tonight. Um do you want to make any opening remarks about the legislation and uh what it's it's calling for the thank you, Mr. President. Just wanted to uh uh a few weeks ago, Mr. Weeks, who resides on DePaul Avenue, he has been talking and and working with a few of the residents and his neighbors um concerning various issues uh in general, but thought that uh vacating that portion of uh the alley would help with some of the tree lining and a lot of the natural stuff that's happening, understanding that there is of course the overarching development that's happening behind there and weighing the uh the concerns uh for both sides for myself at least is making sure that um the residents and the citizens are petitioning their government and I think it uh it would be a good idea for the vacation. I understand that there are the lawsuit is in that the it's in litigation right now, so there would not be a final answer for uh how the development is framing out, but um I do believe that uh it should be uh forwarded on to the council for uh more consideration and conversation. So Mr. Fitzgerald and others can chime in here um as appropriate. Um I just want to clarify because there's been different conversations since this has been put for before us. The part that's that's being asked to be vacated. Um is it just the side portion of the case? Correct. It's the it is the 20-foot wide portion of the alley that begins on DePaul Avenue between I think it's 2035 DePa Avenue and the two houses that are on Abersault, and so it's just going from DePaul Avenue to the back of the property line at 2035. So that would be on the illustration on the plat. It's the but originally they wanted to uh vacate um that section and then halfway through to where there is cement and concrete behind the 200 the 200 block of DePaul. I was confused too much, yeah. But through conversations between the administration and the residents um we have I believe it's some infrastructure that is underground and half of it. So they made sure that they came to an agreement that it would just be that section for the vacation. Right right now there's three mature trees on that um on that piece of property that's trip for property because I I just came from there. Right, I believe that's around the number, yeah. Yeah, there's a big magnolia tree, and then there's a couple other trees. I mean, obviously they've been there for quite a while. Yep. Okay. And there's no no pavement. It's it's all correct. Looks like it's it was pavement at one time and then grass had reclaimed it or even over. Okay. I I guess uh first and foremost, are there any other questions real quick by committee members of Mr. Fitzgerald, real quick at this moment? If not, I was going to turn to Ms. Manning for some legal uh background on this one. If not, Ms. Manning, do you mind giving a little bit more legal insight into the request? Yes, in what regard. So uh first and foremost, um, you know, I'm wondering, do we need to refine the description and and then secondly uh I know that uh parties, uh the petitioners obviously made their petition, other parties have uh communicated uh to counsel through correspondence.
openpublica.com