Residents urge delay on repealing 1955 road-vacation ordinance; board tables action pending counsel

The Lindletown board heard public comment Oct. 1 on a request to vacate a town right-of-way and on a proposal to repeal a 1955 land-vacation ordinance; residents urged the board to delay any repeal until independent legal review.

Supporters of preserving the 1955 action said the ordinance vacated the right-of-way decades ago and that ownership reverted to adjoining property owners. Gary, a resident who submitted a written statement for the record, asked that his comments be entered into the minutes and said the 1955 ordinance "had legal force at the time, and the clear intent was that the vacation was final." He added, "Property rights have vested and cannot simply be undone."

Why it matters: residents said reversing a decades-old vacation would amount to a taking and could expose the town to litigation. Multiple speakers urged the board to obtain independent legal review before acting on either the repeal ordinance or the more recent vacation request.

Most of the public comment focused on three points: (1) the legal status of the 1955 ordinance and whether the town can undo a prior vacation, (2) whether the town may use fire district funds to build or improve the road, and (3) technical problems with the paperwork submitted for recording at the county.

A speaker who said she had contacted the fire marshal reported that Jim Giles, the fire marshal, told her that fire district funds could not be used to finance construction of the road. A separate commenter noted that some property owners on the affected street have asked the town to pay to update their addresses if the 1955 ordinance is honored.

Town staff explained a recording issue that prevents the county from accepting the current vacation description. A staff member said the Planning and Zoning Commission "approved it based off of planning and zoning," but the county recorder requires a surveyor-supplied metes-and-bounds description before an ordinance can be recorded. "We can't write an ordinance" without a description that the county can record, the staff member said.

After public comment, a board member recommended tabling two agenda items—Ordinance 25-20-25-01 (a repeal of the 1955 document portion) and Resolution 2025-03 (approval/denial of the road vacation)—until town legal counsel could attend. A motion to table was seconded; minutes and later discussion show the board agreed to defer further action so counsel can review the record.

Discussion-only items and next steps: the public-hearing period closed after the board allowed roughly 10 minutes of comment. The board did not vote on final approval or denial of the road vacation at the Oct. 1 meeting; instead members proposed tabling the repeal and the road-vacation resolution until the town's legal adviser can be present and review documentation.

Public-record details: several residents asked that their letters and statements be entered into the meeting record. One resident emphasized that the claimed historical vacation appears in the county recorder's file and that adjoining owners have farmed the parcel for decades.

The board did not adopt any ordinance or resolution affecting the right-of-way on Oct. 1; members indicated they will seek legal advice and bring the matter back at a subsequent meeting.