Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables road‑vacation request for 325 South pending property owner feedback and development details
Summary
A request to vacate a portion of 325 South (reduce a 66‑foot right‑of‑way to 45 feet) was tabled after commissioners expressed concerns about fairness to adjacent owners, emergency access, and long‑term maintenance; staff will notify adjacent property owners and the applicant will return with proposed development and design details.
The Cedar City Planning Commission voted to table a petition seeking partial vacation of 325 South (the roadway at 400 East / 325 South) and to ask staff to notify adjacent property owners and solicit their preferences before the commission issues a recommendation.
Applicant Tom DeMille requested the city vacate a portion of the public right‑of‑way so his residence and associated lots would have additional buildable area; the petition would reduce a 66‑foot right‑of‑way down to a 45‑foot width in the affected segment and would require easements to protect an existing water line. DeMille told the commission he intends to build a primary residence on the parcel and described prior engineering work, including a proposed turnaround and utility vaults.
Commissioners raised multiple concerns: whether vacating more than half the right‑of‑way and awarding it to a single owner would be fair to neighboring property owners; how the city would maintain and plow a partially improved road; the location of a major water line in the existing right‑of‑way; the need for an adequate turnaround for fire and solid‑waste vehicles; and whether vacating a portion of the right‑of‑way would create a permanent, unimproved “horse alley” if other owners never improve their frontage.
Several neighbors and nearby property owners attended the hearing. Brent Heaton (owner of adjacent frontage) and a Monte Vista resident spoke; one neighbor asked that adjacent owners be given the opportunity to accept or refuse receiving a portion of the vacated right‑of‑way. Planning staff advised the commission that an easement would be required to protect the water line and that any development triggering a building permit would typically require roadway improvements adjacent to the development.
After discussion the commission voted to table the application and directed staff to notify adjacent owners whether they prefer a partial vacation that would split the width or to allow a larger portion to be conveyed to the applicant; staff will also request the applicant supply detailed turnaround/engineering plans and documentation of proposed improvements and easement language. The item will return to the commission after staff receives the requested information and adjacent owners’ responses.
