Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ross County commissioners table decision on Van DuMark Lane vacation after objections
Summary
At a public hearing on vacating Van DuMark Lane, residents and attorneys including Ben Seagal, representing Greg Bruce, filed objections and asked that documents be added to the record; commissioners declined to decide and instead urged the parties to negotiate a compromise.
Ross County commissioners on Thursday put off a decision on whether to vacate Van DuMark Lane after receiving objections and sworn declarations from affected landowners.
Attorney Ben Seagal, who identified himself as representing Greg Bruce, told the commissioners the board already had received an objection and a sworn declaration on Bruce’s behalf and asked that those filings be included in the hearing record. "Our arguments are laid out fairly clearly," Seagal said, and he said his client opposes the vacation while remaining open to negotiations.
Commissioners said they would not make a final decision at the hearing. One commissioner moved to table the matter so involved parties could obtain representation and attempt a negotiated settlement; the motion was seconded and the board agreed by voice vote. A commissioner who visited the site said the board’s preference was to have the neighboring landowners try to resolve the dispute before the county acts.
County counsel explained the limits of the county’s authority under state law: if the road is vacated, the right-of-way typically reverts in fee simple to adjacent property owners from the center line and the county cannot unilaterally reallocate those boundaries. Counsel said that any conveyances or changes would need to follow statutory conveyance rules and that negotiation among property owners could be necessary to produce a workable outcome.
Seagal and other participants described possible compromise options, such as conveyances that would ensure Greg Bruce would receive sufficient frontage if the road were vacated, but the attorneys and commissioners agreed not to debate or finalize a plan during the hearing.
The hearing was continued and the objection and supporting materials were made part of the record. The board urged the parties and county staff to pursue a three-way conversation to explore conveyances and other options that might lead to a mutually acceptable resolution.
The public hearing remains open; commissioners did not vote to vacate the road and will take no further action until the parties report back or the matter is rescheduled.
