State: Just who owns Washingtonville’s East Street, anyway?

By LEONARD GLENN CRIST
WASHINGTONVILLE — An inability to determine who owns East Street, the village road in front of the End Zone Sports Bar, has led the Ohio Department of Transportation to delay proposed improvements — primarily adding a traffic signal — to the intersection of state Route 14.

Finding the answer to the question could require village officials to search county title records dating back to the mid-1800s. The issue was discussed Monday at Washingtonville’s village council meeting.

ODOT Transportation Engineer Rodney Wilson sent the village a letter dated May 15 stating ODOT has worked diligently to determine who owns East Street but has “been unsuccessful in accomplishing this goal and will require the assistance of the Village to achieve this purpose.”

ODOT has determined that Jack Waggle claims ownership of part of East Street within the right of way limits through a quitclaim deed. A quitclaim deed means “the grantor will not guarantee that he has good title to convey and that title imperfections may exist,” Wilson wrote.

The previous property owner who sold the land to Waggle also obtained the property through a quitclaim deed from a railroad, Wilson wrote. ODOT has not yet determined how the railroad obtained title to the property.

“In 1834 the village recorded a plat of the town which included East Street,” Wilson wrote. “The railroad became established on the street at some later date. It is our opinion that the railroad could not have obtained a fee interest in the street unless the village conveyed such by an ordinance through official council action.”

In other words, if the village granted the railroad the right of way in the 1800s, when the railroad later abandoned the land, the right of way would revert to the village. The railroad would not legally be able to sell the property to a private individual.

Village records were not made available to ODOT researchers, Wilson wrote.

The proposed improvements to state Route 14 can’t go forward until the property issues are resolved, Wilson wrote. ODOT can’t pursue legal action because ODOT is not a party with legal interest in the street.

“ODOT is suggesting that the village take appropriate legal steps to obtain the decision of a court in this matter so that the village and ODOT know the options for this project,” Wilson wrote.

Village Solicitor Horvath told council the village does not have the power of eminent domain to seize the property.

One option could involve suing Waggle, Horvath said. But he added, “I don’t know how the village could prove 160 years of property transactions were fraudulent.”

Though the property once belonged to the village, Horvath said he doesn’t know how it left the village’s hands.

To further complicate the matters, village records are not very organized. Mayor Norm Sommers said he spent several months trying to locate an ordinance from 1989. Locating an ordinance from the mid-1800s that may or may not exist could be nearly impossible.

Horvath said he will contact ODOT to see if he can learn the results of their research thus far. He also suggested paying for a title search through the county courthouse.

“The courthouse should have every transfer since the inception of the county,” Horvath said, noting most search capabilities only date back 40 or 50 years.

In other business:

¯Council agreed to pay in full the loan for one of its police cruisers, ahead of schedule, saving about $560 in interest over the next two years, according to figures provided by fiscal Officer Dale Davis.

¯Council agreed to waive late charges on the water bill of Norm Kegelmyer. Kegelmyer, of 845 Boston Street, was told by council last year that he could disregard his late charges until they investigated possible metering problems. That investigation never happened, in part because Kegelmyer told water Supervisor Brian Gudat to hold off replacing his meter because Kegelmyer wanted to see if any other problems occurred. Kegelmyer did not pay the late charge, as directed by council, but it was not removed from his bill. As future bills arrived, the unpaid late charge incurred more late charges. Council Monday ruled the original late charge was valid but all other late charges would be waived.

¯Council approved a $25 rate for customer requested dual metering in the event of a water bill dispute.

Leonard Glenn Crist can be reached at lcrist@salemnews.net