Lindell council denies petition to vacate 1st East right-of-way after contentious public hearing

The Lindell Town Council on Nov. 5 approved a resolution denying a petition to vacate a section of 1st East, concluding a public hearing that drew multiple written statements and oral testimony from adjacent property owners.

The petition, filed by property owner Gary Dudson, sought to vacate the platted roadway described in the public notice. After more than a half hour of public comment and legal back-and-forth about a 1955 document, the council adopted Resolution 2025-03 to deny the petition; council members announced four recorded "yes" votes in favor of denial.

Why it matters: neighbors said vacating the road would affect long-standing property rights and future access to Highway 6 and nearby parcels. Several speakers read letters and urged the council to uphold the existing plat record and public access. One letter read on the record from Ed and Christine Proctor argued that "70 years of continuous recognition and reliance on the recorded plat firmly established this roadway as a legitimate ... platted right of way under Utah law."

The debate focused on two legal points: whether a 1955 ordinance vacating certain rights-of-way was valid and whether it had been properly recorded, and whether the town had met public-notice requirements for recent council action. Katie Dodson, who lives adjacent to the property, told the council she believes the 1955 action vacated town rights and that any failure to update county records does not negate that vacation; she asked the council to seek a declaratory judgment if the council would not accept that position.

Town counsel and other council members took a different view on the record, saying the 1955 document was not recorded and noting a September 2025 action that, in the town’s view, repealed or clarified the earlier paper. The town attorney stated on the record that "it wasn't recorded" and emphasized the statutory requirement that vacating a road is disfavored and requires a finding of "good cause."

Council members and residents also discussed funding and maintenance history during the hearing. Council members noted Lindell has received money earmarked for roads from TransWest Power (a figure cited at $168,000) and said bids for the specific roads in question came back near $70,000. Residents complained about past maintenance and about posting of notice material, with one attendee observing the notice was posted the morning of the meeting.

The council clarified the vote: a "yes" vote meant denying the petition (retaining the public right-of-way), and a "no" vote would have favored vacating it. After votes were announced, the chair stated the resolution would take effect immediately as authorized in the text.

What happens next: The town attorney said he will double-check assertions about notice sufficiency; if required, the council could re-notice and re-agendize the petition at a future meeting. Those opposed to the denial were told they retain procedural avenues, including appellate or court processes; some residents specifically requested a declaratory judgment from a court to resolve the competing legal interpretations.

Council members additionally discussed but did not accept a call to involve the Ombudsman for mediation on this specific matter, and other agenda items proceeded after the vote.