ASHLAND — A group of Montgomery Township residents on Thursday sharply opposed Ashland County Engineer Ed Meixner’s plan to vacate a small county road in their area.
The engineer seeks to dissolve county ownership of and maintenance responsibilities for County Road 1610, a gravel off-shoot of Ohio 60 that serves four houses.
Residents from those houses came to an Ashland County commissioners meeting for a public hearing to argue against vacating the road.
“This just simply isn’t fair,” said Cheryl Hissong, one of the residents who lives along County Road 1610.
Meixner requested vacating the road in late April.
Since then, commissioners held a public viewing of the road on Tuesday and set a public hearing for Thursday.
“For many years, Ashland County has maintained County Road 1610 even though the vast majority of the tax payers of Ashland County do not use and receive no benefit from its existence,” reads Meixner’s letter to the commissioners.
The county engineer’s office conducted a traffic study in January that found 23 vehicles traveled on the road over eight days.
The move would mean maintenance of the road — plowing, filling pot holes and general upkeep — would fall to the residents who live there.
Vacating roads and alleys that serve no public interest is common in local government. The City of Ashland, for example, voted to vacate several alleys in downtown Ashland in May.
In 2020, the county vacated County Road 939 and County Road 1217 “for a lack of traffic and no benefit to the general traveling public,” Meixner wrote in a letter to the commissioners.
The final decision, in this case, rests with the commissioners, who did not make a decision. Thursday. Commissioner Denny Bittle said a decision would come soon, but did not specify when.
‘Like our own private little cul-de-sac’
Hissong, who came with her husband, Steve, has lived at the house along County Road 1610 for nearly 14 years.
“I was born and raised in Mansfield,” she said. “But we chose Ashland because we’ve always loved Ashland.”
She said she and her husband pay taxes and take pride in their 14-acre property.
“We feel like the rug is being pull out from under us,” she said. “Our road … it’d be no different if we lived in town and we lived on a cul-de-sac. So our little road, to us, it’s kinda like our own private little cul-de-sac. But we still pay taxes for it and we still need it maintained.”
All the residents disagreed the road doesn’t serve the general public. They said the road acts as a pass-through when Ohio 60 is closed for repair. They also said the road is the only way public service vehicles, trash trucks and delivery trucks can access their homes.
Sue and Greg McClure have lived on the road since the 1970s. Sue McClure pointed to the bridge on the road.
“If that bridge ever goes, we can’t repair it,” she said, adding most of the residents who live there are seniors and that they don’t have enough money to fix it.
Dustal Pryor, another resident, said residents maintaining the road wouldn’t be safe.
“It’s kinda pointless of abandoning it if everybody still has access to it and we have to pay for it. We pay taxes every year for it,” she said.
‘Cost avoidance’
The road, which is 1,176 feet in length, also has a bridge.
At one point during the hearing, Greg McClure asked Meixner what the big advantage is to the county in vacating the road. Meixner acknowledged the annual cost to maintain the road is “minimal,” but said repairing an old bridge on the road could be costly.
“The cost of the bridge, at some point in time, is going to be expensive. And so I have a concern about the bridge in the future,” Meixner said.
McClure said, “So it’s a cost avoidance? That’s basically what it boils down to.”
Meixner replied, ““If that’s the word you want to use, then yes.”
The county engineer said he’s not worried about an imminent failure to the bridge — all bridges in the county are inspected yearly, he said.
What about transferring ownership of the road to Montgomery Township?
Meixner said transferring ownership of the road to the township is an option.
But, “it’s been made known to me that the township has no interest,” he said.
Montgomery Township Trustee Josh Boley confirmed that sentiment. But even if the township owned the road, maintaining the bridge would still fall to the county.
Boley’s two cents? He said vacating the road could pose a risk to the residents who live there. He said all Montgomery Township residents pay for a fire levy to fund shared services with Ashland Fire Division.
The road could get into disrepair if it’s vacated by the county, which could be dangerous to fire personnel, he said.
“My main concern — if you shut a road down that is a road, and it now becomes a private road with (four) dwellings, the safety of emergency services finding them becomes slim to none,” he said. “I think it’s kind of dirty to our residents.”
Change of addresses?
If the road is vacated, the mailing addresses of the four living along County Road 1610 would change. The agencies involved in determining the addresses are Ashland County EMA and the Ashland County Sheriff’s Office, said Meixner.
He said the new addresses would be listed at State Route 60 with A, B, C or D markers.
Two of the four houses along County Road 1610 have incorrect addresses, Meixner said.
What’s next?
Bittle said he has some investigating to do before he decides how to vote on the issue.
Vacating the road is the commissioners’ decision, ultimately. He said the vote will appear as an agenda item on an upcoming meeting, but didn’t specify when that would happen.
The Ashland County Board of Commissioners meets Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9 a.m.