Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lindell council denies petition to vacate east-side road, repeals 1955 paper ordinance
Summary
The Lindell Town Council voted to deny a petition to vacate a road east of 425 South Main, citing recording-description defects and public opposition; the council also moved to void a 1955 ordinance on the matter and will send a courtesy denial letter to petitioners.
The Lindell Town Council on a voice and roll-call vote denied a petition to vacate the east-side right of way near 425 South Main and moved to repeal an older 1955 ordinance related to road vacations.
Council members discussed two bases for rejecting the petition: a technical deficiency in the legal description that would prevent recording, and substantive public opposition expressed during the meeting. Speaker 7, advising the council, said the denial was “based on the technicality of the description being insufficient for recording,” and also noted that members of the public had spoken against granting the petition.
Two residents had asked the council to keep the road open. Speaker 1 read a letter from Sam and Heather Polson urging the town not to vacate the road, saying that “keeping this road open and paved is very important for the safety of my family, my neighbors, and the community” and recounting a past house fire where the road would have aided emergency access. A second written statement from Lana Hare, who owns adjoining property, said the road is shown on her plat map and that retaining access to Highway 6 is valuable for current and future property owners.
Council members clarified voting language before the roll call: a “yes” vote on resolution 2025-03 would deny the petition (keeping the road open), while “no” would close the road. The council recorded a series of yes votes and the chair announced the petition denied and the road will remain open. Speaker 7 recommended sending a courtesy letter enclosing the ordinance and resolution to the petitioners; council members agreed to provide written notice even though administrative denial is possible.
The council also discussed administrative next steps and the possibility of petitioners resubmitting after required waiting periods in town code. Speaker 7 summarized administrative options and noted Utah law’s emphasis on transparency in petition processes. The denial does not permanently bar refiling; staff will prepare the formal denial letter and copies of the ordinance and resolution for the petitioners.
What happens next: the council instructed staff to draft and send a denial letter and to include copies of the adopted resolution and the repealed 1955 document for the petitioners’ records. If petitioners wish to try again they will need to follow filing requirements and any waiting period in town code.
