Public hearing in Lindletown centers on road-vacation claim tied to 1955 ordinance; board opts to delay repeal

Lindletown — Members of the public told the Lindletown Town Board on Oct. 1 that a 1955 ordinance vacating a town right-of-way is final and that the town should not repeal it without independent legal review.

A resident’s written statement submitted for the record and read during the hearing asserted that the 1955 action transferred ownership of the vacated right-of-way to adjoining property owners and that attempting to reverse that transfer now would amount to an unconstitutional taking unless the town pursued eminent-domain procedures and paid compensation. The statement requested that the board "pass the merits request and table the repeal vote until this matter is reviewed by independent legal counsel." (The written submission was identified in the meeting as originating with Gary.)

Why it matters: The dispute touches on property titles, the town’s procedural authority to record ordinances through the county recorder, and emergency-access claims raised by nearby property owners. If the town were to proceed with construction or re-opening without using the proper condemnation process, residents warned, the town could face litigation.

Town staff explained that Planning and Zoning had reviewed the proposal on planning merits but that the county recorder would not accept the description provided for recording. According to staff, the application lacks a surveyor-prepared "meets and bounds" description that the county can record; without such a description, the board cannot adopt an ordinance the county would accept. That technical requirement was presented as the immediate procedural barrier to adopting any repeal tonight.

Other speakers offered historical testimony that the parcel had been farmed for decades and that no maintained road existed in living memory; one resident said a turnaround could be designed to preserve emergency access without creating a new through-road. Another participant said they had discussed the funding question with Fire Marshal Jim Giles, who told them funds from the fire district could not be used to finance construction of a new road.

Board response and next steps: The mayor (Speaker 1) proposed tabling any action on the proposed repeal until the town’s legal counsel (identified in prior meetings as Todd Anderson) could be present to review the documents. A second was voiced during the meeting; however, no formal roll-call vote adopting or rejecting a repeal appears in the transcript. The board will need a county-recordable description from a surveyor and legal counsel’s advice before taking further action.

The meeting record shows continuing disagreement among residents about whether the 1955 ordinance remains effective, an unresolved claim of conflict of interest raised by a resident regarding two individuals with the surname Proctor, and procedural dispute over whether the board could lawfully consider a repeal at this session without separate public notice for that ordinance.

What’s next: The board moved to postpone substantive action on the repeal and to seek legal advice and a corrected legal description that the county can record. That procedural tabling leaves the underlying claims about title and potential compensation unresolved pending counsel and surveyor work.