Council weighs vacating portion of 100 East after 1950s ordinance was never recorded

Presiding officer (Speaker 1) opened a public hearing focused on 100 East and an older ordinance that, council members said, was passed decades ago but was never recorded in county records (the ordinance was described as coming from the 1950s). Residents raised land-title and access concerns linked to the missing record; one resident identified during the hearing as asking for action described the practical consequence: "This is almost one of those things that needs to go in front of a judge" (Speaker 5).

Why it matters: council members and residents said the unresolved paperwork is affecting property divisions and development. Council members and staff also flagged public-safety implications: the town and fire district have invested in fire access and a hydrant at the location, and attorney guidance from "Todd" was relayed to the body that, given recent development and the hydrant, it would not be in the town's interest to unilaterally vacate or re-issue the road without clearing legal and record issues first (Speaker 1).

What council members and residents said: residents familiar with the original maps said the road width recorded in older plat maps is inconsistent (some documents show 90 feet; measured map data and other records show it as 80 feet). Speaker 1 told the room that "Todd did say we could create a new ordinance. We could pass it. But it was recommended not to because there is development happening and because now there's a fire hydrant back there". Multiple participants urged the petitioner (identified in the hearing as a property owner seeking vacatur) to consult private legal counsel; Speaker 1 recommended the town follow attorney guidance and not act until legal avenues are clarified.

A path forward offered by staff: the clerk (Speaker 9) and staff described the standard planning-and-zoning route used for road vacations: notice and posting requirements, a planning-and-zoning hearing, and formal public-notice timelines. Speaker 9 said, "If we would like to vacate the road and we'd like it on the agenda for planning and zoning next month, I will need the documentation by June 9 in order to get all the notices to the newspaper and to the residents." That offer included an offer to email the application and instructions to the petitioner to start the formal process.

Points of disagreement and constraints: some speakers argued for honoring the older ordinance; others said enforcing a partially recorded 1950s ordinance could landlock properties or disrupt access for owners who have relied on the road. Council members repeatedly emphasized limits posed by records and legal constraints: one council member observed that the prior ordinance lacked a severability clause and that if a portion could not be legally enforced, the whole 1950s ordinance could be void. Fire access standards were cited as a strong practical reason to resolve the issue through planning and engineering rather than immediate vacation.

Next steps: council recommended the petitioner pursue private legal review and advised that, if the petitioner wishes to proceed administratively, an application to planning and zoning must be filed by June 9 for staff to prepare notices for the next planning-and-zoning meeting. The council did move to consider Ordinance 2024-02 (Christie Bunkers road vacation) during the meeting, but the provided transcript segments do not show a completed roll-call tally in the record supplied; therefore, the final vote outcome is not specified in the transcript excerpts.