Lindell council denies petition to vacate 1st East after public hearing

The Lindell Town Council voted on Nov. 5, 2025 to deny a petition by property owner Gary Dudson to vacate a portion of 1st East between 300 South and 400 South, adopting Resolution 2025-03, which the chair said takes effect immediately.

The public hearing opened after the petitioner and nearby residents agreed to waive a required 10-day notice because the town’s public-notice posting was late. Town counsel told the council the state requires ‘‘a reasonable opportunity to be heard,’’ and the council set a half-hour public-comment window with five minutes per speaker.

Several residents urged the council to preserve the road. A letter read into the record on behalf of Ed and Christine Proctor argued the 1955 ordinance cited by the petitioner was never recorded and therefore ‘‘legally baseless,’’ and urged the council to ‘‘reaffirm 1st East as an established public roadway.’' The letter also said the sudden challenge by the petitioner ‘‘raises concerns about motive and credibility.’’

Katie Dodson, who said she lives adjacent to the parcel at issue, told the council she believes the town vacated rights in 1955 and that the town’s failure to file recording paperwork does not negate the vacatur. ‘‘If there is still doubt or question in your mind about the rights to the properties in question, then I request a declaratory judgment to be obtained by the court to determine the rights of the property owner and of the town,’’ Dodson said.

Town counsel and some council members disputed the residents’ legal reading. Counsel noted the 1955 document ‘‘was not recorded’’ and that, in the town’s view, the prior ordinance had been repealed in a September 2025 action; counsel recommended re-noticing and using the appellate process if parties seek review. ‘‘You’re welcome to utilize the appellate process and the court process,’’ counsel said.

Council members also discussed funding and maintenance. The council said TransWest Power provided $168,000 toward road development in the area and that bids for the immediate segment were approximately $70,000; council members said those funds and local donations have been allocated toward road work.

After public comment, a motion to close the public hearing was moved and seconded. The council then considered Resolution 2025-03, which the chair read aloud and described as ‘‘a resolution denying the petition to vacate the right of way.’’ When the council called votes, several members announced ‘‘yes’’ in favor of denial; the chair confirmed the resolution passed, denying the requested vacation on a technical/notice basis and leaving property-record disputes and any claims of prior vacatur to be pursued in court if parties choose.

The council also discussed but did not pursue Ombudsman Office mediation on tree removals tied to the dispute, with counsel recommending a documented response and a respectful decline if the facts do not warrant mediation.

The denial leaves the status of 1st East unchanged pending any court action or future council reconsideration; council members said they will re-notice and re-agendize if procedural notice is found insufficient and the matter is resubmitted.