Resident urges Rockville council to declare Eagle Crags Road public frontage after ombudsman advisory opinion

Jacob Anderson, a Rockville resident and the applicant for a building permit, asked the town council to declare that Eagle Crags Road is a public road that provides the frontage required for his permit application.

Anderson told the council the planning commission approved the building permit on April 9, 2024, conditioned on the council determining whether Eagle Crags Road is public or private and whether it provides frontage. Anderson summarized materials he submitted to an ombudsman and to the county, and said the ombudsman issued an advisory opinion finding "there's substantial evidence Eagle Crag Road is a public road providing frontage to the Anderson parcel for development purposes." Anderson also said the state's ArcGIS shows the route as a class C road and that recorded surveys from 2021 delineate a 60‑foot (or 66‑foot on earlier deeds) right of way through the area.

Anderson asked the council to accept the ombudsman's advisory opinion and to act, saying the question has been pending for two years: "I hereby request that" the council make a timely decision, he said, citing a Utah code reference he read aloud to the council.

Council members and staff questioned several factual points. They asked for a complete copy of the recorded survey (Anderson said he would provide the missing page before the meeting's end and email a larger digital copy). Councilors discussed three options: find the frontage condition satisfied and move the permit forward; specifically find the condition unsatisfied; or table the matter for additional verification (for example, county title records or further survey work). Several councilors noted that a recorded excavation in 2023 could affect arguments about a 10‑year continuous public use necessary for a prescriptive claim to an expanded roadway footprint. One councilor summarized the legal threshold discussed: a continuous 10‑year public use is often required to establish a prescriptive public right of way.

The council did not reach a decision at the meeting. Instead, members asked Anderson to supply the full recorded survey electronically and indicated they would either vote at the next meeting after review or table the item with a clear list of outstanding items to verify.

Ending: Anderson said he wanted a prompt decision; the council asked for the full survey and county records to inform a vote or an explicit tabling at a subsequent meeting.