Lindell council denies petition to vacate segment of 100 East after contested public hearing

The Lindell Town Council voted to deny a petition to vacate a portion of 100 East between 300 South and 400 South, adopting Town of Lindell Resolution 2025-03 and making the denial effective immediately.

Supporters of keeping the street public argued at a packed public hearing that an alleged 1955 instrument that the petitioner cites was never recorded and therefore cannot be used to erase long-standing public rights. A written objection submitted by Ed and Christine Proctor, read into the record, said the official plat has consistently identified 1st East as a public road and urged the council to reaffirm the road’s status.

The hearing produced conflicting legal views. Katie Dodson, an adjacent property owner who has attended prior hearings, told the council she had researched the 1955 action and urged the town to recognize a prior vacation of rights in favor of adjacent owners or, if uncertainty remained, to seek a declaratory judgment in court. Town counsel (speaking for the town) told the council the 1955 document was not recorded in the county records and that council records show the town repealed the 1955 action in a September meeting — a position residents disputed on procedural and evidentiary grounds.

Council members also discussed practical consequences: county tax and Class C road funding practices mean a platted road is not taxed as a parcel, and the town has historically received state road funds based on road mileage. Several residents argued the road provides important access to Highway 6 and future homes, and a developer’s letter submitted by Lana O’Hare said she purchased her property with the plat showing the easterly road and opposed vacation.

After the public comment period closed, council members debated the legal standard for vacating a road and the requirement to find "good cause" to grant such petitions. The town attorney advised that courts generally disfavor vacating roads and that the council must find sufficient cause to do so. Council members then voted on Resolution 2025-03, which denied the petition to vacate the right-of-way. The roll call in the meeting record shows yes votes recorded in favor of denying the petition from Richard Pine, Matthew Draper, Spencer Proctor and the presiding council member; the resolution was announced as effective immediately.

The council did not convert the hearing into a court determination; several residents were advised that, if legal questions persist (for example about the 1955 instrument’s legal effect or whether the town followed recording requirements), the remedy would be for affected parties to pursue court review or a declaratory judgment. Town counsel also said that if the council’s required public notice had been insufficient, the matter could be re-noticed and returned to the council at a later meeting.

The council’s action resolves the petition before it today; any further legal challenges or appeals would be pursued in court or raised at a future council agenda if re-noticed.