Landowners ask Rush Valley to restore town-owned road or grant access to three landlocked parcels

Several Rush Valley landowners asked the Planning and Zoning meeting to note access problems for three landlocked parcels near Main Street and what the speaker called “the meadow,” and to consider restoring a town-owned parcel shown on county maps as a road.

Craig Park, a local landowner, said his family acquired a 500-acre ranch in 1981 and later sold some parcels to neighbors. He said three small parcels — about 20 acres, a little over 5 acres and just under 3 acres — have been landlocked for decades and had been accessed under a long-standing, informal “gentleman's agreement” across adjoining property. Park said a current property owner told them the agreement no longer applies and threatened to involve law enforcement if they attempted to use the private track. “We would request an easement by necessity to be able to get to those landlocked parcels,” Park told the board.

Curtis Sagers, who identified himself as trustee for the Sagers trust, said the historic access was informal and that the division of the trust among heirs has changed ownership patterns; he confirmed the informal nature of the prior access agreement and that successors now control the needed parcels.

Park and Sagers said they had checked title and recorder records and found a parcel labeled as a road (shown in red on the materials they provided) that the county and their title company indicated remains owned by Rush Valley. They described an irrigation line along the north side of the fence, uneven fence placement relative to the legal road centerline and seasonal sogginess on Pine Street where an alternate access exists. Meeting participants discussed that the recorded easement width is shown as 66 feet on maps but that a survey would be required to determine the legal centerline and exact location of the fence.

Town attorney Rob Clegg told the landowners that the narrow parcel they identified appears to be owned by Rush Valley and is an apparent extension of Cedar Street but emphasized that town ownership does not obligate the town to develop the road. “The town is the town is who owns all this property. So they can decide what they wanna do and what's actually practical,” Clegg said, and suggested the landowners ask the town council whether the town would take on improvements. He recommended the speakers put the issue on the council agenda; staff said the next town council meeting is Sept. 24.

No formal action was taken by the Planning and Zoning panel. Board members and the attorney advised the landowners to pursue options with private neighbors, to discuss possible town involvement with the council, and to obtain a survey to clarify the legal road centerline and easement limits. Town staff provided a town email (townoftownofrushvalley@gmail.com) for agenda requests and follow-up.