Public hearing held on proposed vacation of 3000 West in South County

Utah County held a public hearing on a petition filed by Public Works to vacate a roughly half-mile, farm two-track known as 3000 West (6400 South). County staff told commissioners the county has claimed the route as a public right-of-way since about 1960 but does not hold a deed, and that recent litigation brought by a local landowner challenges that claim.

Dale, a Public Works staff member who presented the petition, said the road “has no useful purpose as a public road right now” and described several obstacles to bringing the route up to county standards, including encroachment by a residence and drainage issues. He estimated it would cost “easily over a million dollars” to improve and straighten the road to county specifications, a financial obligation the county would assume if it retained ownership.

Property owners who spoke said vacating the road would cause hardship. Shane Pierce, who said he and his wife bought 10 acres on the road in 2014, told the commission, “vacating the road would cause serious harm to our investment and the value of the property,” and said he is unsure how private access would be preserved if the county abandons the right-of-way. His wife, Heidi Pierce, urged the county to consider alternatives such as moving an outbuilding that encroaches on the route instead of vacating the road entirely.

James Tracy, speaking as counsel for record landowner Randall Dan Janovich, said his client owns at least half of the physical roadbed and supports the petition. Tracy said vacating the right-of-way could resolve the litigation over whether the route was ever properly dedicated as a public thoroughfare and cited Utah Code Section 10-9A-609.5, which states in part that “the action of the legislative body vacating a public street may not be construed to impair any right of way of any landowner.”

Another participant noted that property lines may run to the middle of the road, meaning multiple owners have interests in the strip. Commissioners closed the public hearing after hearing three speakers and said staff would investigate the issues raised and return the matter for a future decision; no final vote on the vacation was taken at this meeting.

Next steps: the county will review the legal and practical implications raised during the hearing — including ownership claims, potential access agreements, and estimated improvement costs — and bring recommendations back to the commission for further action.