Commission declines to vacate portion of Class B road at 1250 North after lengthy dispute over easements and subdivision approvals

The Uintah County Commission on a February 2025 meeting considered but did not adopt a motion to vacate a portion of a Class B road at 1250 North that lies on private property owned by Christy Jenkins.

The item, listed as Ordinance 12O4202301 on the agenda, prompted more than an hour of public comment and discussion. Commissioners heard from the executor of a family trust, several neighbors and county staff about competing claims over whether the lane was ever a public road, how prior minor-subdivision approvals were handled, and whether vacating the road would landlock adjacent parcels.

TJ Batty, who identified himself as executor of the trust that owned portions of the land, argued the lane "is not a road. It's never been a road. Everyone knows that," and said the trust and subsequent buyers proceeded with land transfers and sales that later created the dispute. Batty urged the commission to vacate the road and allow the parties to resolve property rights without additional county involvement.

Other speakers, and at least one commissioner, said recent subdivision approvals and other county actions created uncertainty and that new evidence submitted by a property owner ' an email received the day before the hearing ' suggested the claimed easement provided ingress and egress only to 1250 North and not beyond. A commissioner said the principal concern was avoiding landlocking a property and noted that the record contained insufficient evidence that the lane met Class B road standards.

County staff reported that a 33-foot easement was recorded in 2003 and that the current driving width of the lane is roughly 12 feet. Several speakers described narrow driving conditions, parking and utility access concerns, and the potential for conflict if utilities were installed through the disputed lane. One speaker said Christie Jenkins spent substantial funds maintaining access for nearly 25 years and that vacating the lane could force neighbors into litigation over access rights.

After discussion, a motion to vacate the road was made by a commissioner. Following further debate, the motion did not carry; the transcript records an opposing voice and the chair announced the vote outcome as a negative on the motion to vacate. The commission did not adopt an alternative action at the meeting and asked staff to continue researching the record and legal standards before bringing the matter back.

Background and next steps

County staff said earlier hearings and paperwork have stretched over roughly two years, and that the commission and staff have attempted to reconcile survey and subdivision records. Commissioners asked staff to locate legal standards and evidence regarding the county's historical treatment of the lane and to return the item with clearer documentation. The commission did not provide a formal timetable for rehearing the matter.

Key points from the record

- The parcel and lane in question were the subject of a proposed minor subdivision and sale that proceeded while ownership and easement questions were outstanding.

- A 2003 instrument recorded a 33-foot easement; speakers disagreed about whether that instrument and subsequent use created a public road or only private access.

- Commissioners expressed concern about landlocking parcels and the practical width and condition of the lane (driving width cited at about 12 feet).

- The commission voted on a motion to vacate the referenced portion of the Class B road; the motion failed. No alternative final action was taken at the meeting.

Speakers and records noted possible litigation if the county took definitive action without clearing title and easement claims.