Parkersburg resident Dan Vaught tends to make his case for possessing his property removed from the city limits in the course of a meeting of the Municipal Organizing Commission on Friday. The commission rejected the petition 7-. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

Parkersburg resident Dan Vaught tends to make his case for possessing his property removed from the city limits in the course of a meeting of the Municipal Organizing Commission on Friday. The commission rejected the petition 7-. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

Parkersburg Municipal Organizing Commission President Charlie Matthews, left, consults with City Planner Connor LaVelle in the course of a meeting Friday in City Council chambers. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

Parkersburg resident Dan Vaught tends to make his case for possessing his property removed from the city limits in the course of a meeting of the Municipal Organizing Commission on Friday. The commission rejected the petition 7-. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

PARKERSBURG — The Municipal Organizing Commission on Friday rejected an application from a man asking to have his household residence removed from Parkersburg’s city limits.

But Dan Vaught mentioned he plans to retain pushing for the adjust, arguing the house by no means should really have been in the city.

In his application to the commission, Vaught mentioned the annexation was “done against the owners’ will.”

City officials dispute that, saying 2010 Vaught Terrace was element of the annexation of south Parkersburg authorized by voters in 1950. Vaught maintains it didn’t occur till about 1980, when yet another resident had his house annexed into the city.

“My parents seriously had been unhappy when that occurred,” he mentioned. “They had been by no means told about it till soon after it was performed.”

Parkersburg Municipal Organizing Commission President Charlie Matthews, left, consults with City Planner Connor LaVelle in the course of a meeting Friday in City Council chambers. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

City Planner Connor LaVelle mentioned there had been no formal complaints on record. He also noted that Vaught’s late parents consistently paid their city costs.

“My parents paid what ever bills came in for the reason that that is the sort of people today they had been,” Vaught mentioned.

LaVelle mentioned Vaught is delinquent on city costs and has told the Finance Division it is for the reason that “there is a boundary dispute.”

“As extended as the house is in the city, costs will be assessed,” LaVelle mentioned.

Vaught told commission members that he receives no advantage from becoming in the city, other than trash service, and he could use a break on the costs for the reason that he is on a fixed revenue.

Parkersburg resident Dan Vaught tends to make his case for possessing his property removed from the city limits in the course of a meeting of the Municipal Organizing Commission on Friday. The commission rejected the petition 7-. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

Commission member John Reed mentioned Vaught would truly be saving cash by remaining in the city for the reason that “the county fire charge would be larger than the city fire charge.”

In his application, Vaught noted the lack of a fire hydrant on his road. Fire Chief Jason Matthews mentioned in a memo on the application that fire trucks have water tanks on them and a hydrant on South Lake Drive could give water in the occasion that additional is required. A hydrant will be added nearby on Newberry Drive as element of an upcoming water project, he mentioned.

Vaught mentioned he believed the approach would be a formality and he had not brought documentation supporting his claims. Assistant City Lawyer Rob Tebay asked him to generate it if he could.

The commission voted 7-, with 4 members absent, to reject the petition. Tebay told Vaught that would be the finish of the matter unless he could get 3 Parkersburg City Council members to sponsor the item on their agenda.

Immediately after the meeting, Vaught mentioned he would perform on that and also retain counsel to help him.

Commission member Luke Peters mentioned he voted against the petition for the reason that there was no proof the house wasn’t annexed legally.

“Even the people today that voted against it (in 1950) had been nonetheless in,” he mentioned.

Tebay mentioned this was the initially petition to be removed from the city limits he could recall in his almost 30 years operating for the city.

“We’ve had lots of annexations, and in that similar neighborhood,” he mentioned.

Evan Bevins can be reached at ebevins@newsandsentinel.com

Today’s breaking news and additional in your inbox

By Editor

Leave a Reply