Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lindletown public hearing on disputed 1955 road vacation leads board to table repeal pending legal review
Summary
Residents at a public hearing argued a 1955 ordinance vacated a town right‑of‑way and vested adjoining owners’ property rights; the Town Board agreed to table any repeal action and seek legal counsel after concerns about recording, funding and possible constitutional takings were raised.
A public hearing on Oct. 1, 2025 drew multiple residents to the Lindletown Town Board to debate a road‑vacation request and a related effort to repeal a 1955 ordinance. Residents argued the 1955 ordinance had legally vacated the right‑of‑way and that adjoining landowners received vested property rights that cannot be reversed without a formal condemnation and eminent‑domain process.
A resident who read a prepared statement into the record said the 1955 ordinance was properly passed and notarized and therefore "not an admission that the 1955 vacation was invalid" but that the town’s recent actions were being taken in good faith. The reader asked the board to approve the vacation request on its merits and to "table the repeal vote until this matter is reviewed by independent legal counsel," saying a repeal without proper process could amount to an unconstitutional taking under the U.S. and Utah constitutions.
Other public commenters provided competing factual claims about whether a roadway physically existed on the parcel. One long‑time farmer said he had farmed the land for decades and that there had never been a road across the parcel, while another resident said town property records and online mapping show a road. Multiple speakers asked that, if the town honors the 1955 vacation, the town cover the administrative cost of address changes for affected residents.
Board members and staff told the hearing that Planning & Zoning had approved the vacation on planning grounds but the county rejected the application because the submitted description could not be recorded; staff explained the town cannot pass an ordinance unless the county can record a meets‑and‑bounds description from a licensed surveyor. The fire marshal was cited by residents as saying fire‑district funds could not be used to build the road.
Given the factual, legal and recording questions raised during public comment, the mayor and board members agreed the matter should not be decided that night. The presiding officer proposed tabling consideration of the ordinance repeal until town attorney Todd Anderson or independent legal counsel could review the record; a board member seconded that suggestion. The board did not adopt a detailed written decision on the repeal that night and directed that the matter be returned when counsel is present.
What happens next: the board recorded public comments, accepted written comments after the hearing, and instructed staff to secure legal review and, if necessary, a proper surveyor description that the county recorder can accept before advancing any ordinance to repeal language tied to the 1955 vacation.
