Lynndyl council delays decision on repeal of 1955 road-vacation ordinance after residents raise legal and access concerns

The Lynndyl Town Council deferred a decision on repealing a 1955 Vacation of Roads and Alleyways ordinance after residents in a public hearing argued the change could strip neighbors of access and that the town’s process was flawed.

"It is a self serving act of the members of the town council today to repeal that ordinance from 1955 solely for the purpose of gaining access to the property located at 100 East, 400 South and extended to Highway 6," said Katie Dutson, a resident who testified during the hearing. Dutson also read aloud a statutory provision she said supports adjacent landowners’ claims to abandoned roadbed after 50 years, citing what she read as "Utah Code 72-5-105."

Town staff and other participants disagreed about whether the 1955 document was ever recorded and about the practical effects of recording it now. A staff member explained that, under current law, a vacating ordinance accepted by the county recorder would change title records and could leave some parcels without clear legal access if surrounding records are not reconciled. "If it gets recorded, then and the county recorder accepts it and vacates those roads that are listed as being vacated," the staff member said, adding that title searches and mortgage underwriting rely on current public records.

Several residents described decades of development that rely on the town’s current recorded maps and surveys. One commenter said the wall of their house sits 8 inches into the mapped road and that utilities and other improvements cross the right of way. Speakers warned that recording a long-unused vacation now could make properties landlocked or trigger complicated easement and title disputes.

Other speakers pointed to procedural history: participants said this was at least the third public hearing on the ordinance and that a prior attempt to record a version of the ordinance failed because of insufficient notice or clerical error. Council members and staff discussed whether it would be more appropriate to evaluate each vacation separately rather than wholesale repealing or recording of all 1950s-listed vacations.

With the hearing period concluded, the council moved to adjourn public comment and the chair announced the repeal proposal will be placed on the council’s December meeting agenda for a formal vote and additional public notice. No formal vote on the ordinance repeal was taken during the hearing.

The council did not set a specific schedule for follow-up studies, maps or legal analyses; council members and staff indicated additional review and, where appropriate, case-by-case petitions would be a next step.