Residents press county over alleged declarant easements in Cottages at Hobble Creek; attorneys urge caution

Residents of the Cottages at Hobble Creek urged Utah County commissioners on April 28 to withhold consent to amended covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) until questions about retained declarant easement rights are resolved.

Andrea Perry, a resident, cited Utah Code 57-8A-502 and historical filings to argue that declarant control should have terminated when a sufficient percentage of lots were sold. She and other residents presented recorded maintenance agreements, quitclaim deeds, and court filings they said show the developer did not reserve easement rights when conveying common areas. "Once it's recorded... it needs to go back to Mr. Shawcroft," a resident said referencing recorded documents. Carol Ferguson and other neighbors said plat maps and road-improvement plans consistently mark roads as private and that the maintenance agreement controls.

Rob Moore from the County Attorney's Office said the county is not the proper body to make a final legal determination about extinguishment or retention of declarant rights without documentation or the developer's signature, and suggested two operational options: obtain TNM Development's sign-off on the revised CC&Rs or retain section 4.5 from the original CC&Rs in the county's consent to reduce liability. Moore volunteered to review documents residents submit before the next hearing.

Commissioners declined to act on the CC&Rs that day because the matter raises legal questions that the county attorney needs to review; they agreed to strike item 32 from today's agenda and place supporting documents and a related maintenance agreement back on the agenda for further consideration. Residents asked the county to consider approving the maintenance agreement and reactivating a prior working group; county staff agreed to review the submitted materials and bring the item back to the commission.

The hearing featured detailed citations to recorded documents and statutes but no final legal ruling; commissioners and county counsel recommended further review and possible court resolution if parties disagree about legal rights.