Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town public hearing exposes sharp division over 1955 road‑vacation and proposed repeal
Summary
At a Oct. 1 town board meeting, residents urged the board to respect a 1955 road‑vacation ordinance and warned that undoing it would require eminent domain; officials said the county cannot record the current description and suggested tabling repeal until legal counsel provides guidance.
A public hearing on Oct. 1 drew multiple residents to oppose undoing a 1955 road‑vacation and to urge the board to either honor the prior vacation or proceed only with full legal review.
The matter began when a resident asked that his written statement be entered into the record, saying the 1955 ordinance that vacated the right of way "was passed and notarized" and arguing that the vacation transferred ownership to adjoining landowners. "Property rights have vested and cannot simply be undone," the resident said, and he asked the board to approve the current vacation request while tabling any repeal until independent legal counsel could review the matter.
Supporters of keeping the right of way vacated described decades of farming and asserted there never had been a public road. "I farmed that ground for 25 years. No road there," a longtime farmer told the board. In contrast, at least one nearby property owner said the roadway provided important access for his home at 300 South and 100 East and urged the board not to reverse prior findings.
Town staff and planning representatives said the issue is partly technical: planning and zoning approved the proposal from their perspective, but the county informed town staff that the ordinance language did not contain a recorder‑able legal description. "We had a description that the county said we could not record," a planning & zoning representative said, explaining that a surveyor's meets‑and‑bounds description is needed before the county can accept and record an ordinance.
Residents also raised procedural objections at the meeting. One attendee alleged a conflict of interest involving two town officials and argued that passing an ordinance that evening without specific public notice would be improper; board members asked for specifics and discussed following legal advice.
Given the competing claims — that a 1955 vacation was final and vested versus concerns about access and recordability — board members agreed the correct next step is legal review. A motion to table further action on the repeal until the town attorney (Todd Anderson) could be present was made and seconded during the meeting.
The board closed public comment after the time limit set at the hearing and accepted written comments for the record. No final ordinance repeal was adopted at the Oct. 1 meeting; officials directed staff to obtain a recorder‑able legal description and to have legal counsel advise the board before any change is made.
