Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town hearing on 100 East Road vacating exposes recording errors, fire-access concerns
Summary
At a public hearing, the Lynndyl Town Council discussed a decades-old ordinance that was never recorded and a resident’s request to vacate part of 100 East Road; council advised owners to pursue planning-and-zoning or legal avenues due to fire-access and infrastructure complications.
At its monthly meeting the Lynndyl Town Council held a public hearing on a proposed vacation of part of 100 East Road after officials discovered a 1950s ordinance tied to the road was never recorded in county or town records, voiding its intended effect.
The matter was introduced by the chair, who said, "Todd did say we could create a new ordinance and pass it," and explained the town’s attorney recommended caution while development and fire‑access infrastructure exist. The attendee who raised the issue — identified in the proceeding as Gary Dutson — said the original land divisions were not recorded and urged the council to honor prior actions, but council members said the missing recordation complicates enforcement.
Council members and residents focused on two practical constraints: the existence of water lines and a fire hydrant in the right-of-way and the difficulty of meeting fire‑access standards if the road were vacated. One council member said, "We submitted rebates and everything else ... It was just about to be going," noting the road-development work began before some private purchases and was primarily driven by fire‑access needs after a recent house fire.
Legal counsel and process options dominated the discussion. Multiple members advised the affected property owners to seek private legal review; the chair and other council members recommended the cleanest administrative path is to apply for a new road-vacation through the town’s planning and zoning process so the issues can be vetted, technical problems addressed, and proper notices posted. The clerk provided timing guidance: documentation would be needed by June 9 for planning staff to prepare notices ahead of a June 26 meeting and public-notice windows were emphasized.
Residents raised transparency concerns after some notices were posted late on the town web site; the clerk acknowledged a delayed posting and apologized, while reiterating that public-notice procedures (newspaper and web postings) are required and were followed in other locations. Several council members warned that enforcing the old, unrecorded ordinance could create access problems for properties where development has occurred in the intervening decades.
Next steps: council urged those seeking the vacation to file the planning-and-zoning application, consult counsel if they wish to pursue a legal route, and return prepared to the planning-and-zoning hearing. The transcript does not record a final council vote on the vacation application at this meeting.
