Does permanently closing a public street eliminate its legal status? Culbertson v. Board of County Commissioners Explained

Background and Facts

Property owners Alayna Culbertson and Diane Meibos challenged Salt Lake County’s approval of a shopping center expansion that they claimed violated county zoning ordinances and restricted access to their property. The county had passed Ordinance 1275, which vacated portions of North Union Avenue but permanently closed rather than vacated a 25-foot segment in front of plaintiffs’ property. The county created a new access route called 1070 East Street through an easement. Plaintiffs argued that buildings constructed by the developer violated setback requirements and other ordinances because they encroached on public streets.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the permanently closed portion of North Union Avenue and 1070 East Street retained their legal status as public streets subject to county zoning and roadway ordinances. The trial court had concluded they were merely access easements, not public streets, and therefore not subject to the conditional use permit requirements and county ordinance standards for public streets.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that permanent closure without formal vacation does not eliminate a street’s public status. Under Utah Code section 72-5-105, public highways continue as highways until abandoned or vacated by proper authorities. The county specifically stated it was “closing rather than vacating” the street segment, and there was no evidence of any formal abandonment or vacation order. The court distinguished between temporary closure and the legal procedures required to eliminate public street status.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that counties cannot avoid statutory requirements for street vacation through creative labeling. Local governments must follow proper procedures under Utah Code section 72-5-105 to eliminate public street status. The ruling also demonstrates that private property owners may seek enforcement of zoning ordinances under section 17-27-1002 without exhausting administrative remedies, unlike challenges to land use decisions under section 17-27-1001. However, private parties seeking injunctive relief for zoning violations must still demonstrate irreparable injury, unlike counties which need only establish the violation occurred.