Iowa County holds public hearing on proposed vacation of part of M Avenue after residents raise access concerns

At an Iowa County meeting (date not specified in the record), the board held a public hearing on a proposal to vacate a portion of M Avenue. Residents from the area urged the county not to vacate the road, saying doing so would cut off farm access, require new surveys and culverts, and create safety and trust issues.

The issue drew several speakers from the neighborhood. Steve Baldwin, who said he has maintained part of the dirt road, said he would "personally take care of the road" and asked the county to allow him to continue maintenance beginning at the sign that marks where the road ends. "I would like to personally take care of the road from that word says 700 feet," Baldwin said.

Other nearby landowners opposed the proposal. "By doing this, it will block us to getting into that part of our farm," said Micah Tim, identifying himself as an owner of land accessed by the road. Tina Tuttle Sherman told the board she depends on heavy deliveries — "I have semis that bring sawdust for my horses" — and said she did not trust the proposed private maintainer to keep the road passable. Gary Ken and other residents described past incidents of someone driving across private land to access the hill and said splitting or abandoning 700 feet of road would leave some properties inaccessible to farm equipment or renters.

Residents raised technical objections as well: one commenter said creating a new route would likely require a culvert over a creek and substantial grading, and another asked who would pay for surveys and fence work if the road were split. Ken Tuttle said the dirt road already appeared abandoned in places and warned that splitting the road would create "half a road" that would be unusable for farm equipment.

Board members said the public turnout and comments changed their view of the item. After the hearing the board moved to exit the public hearing; there was no formal vote to vacate the road during the meeting. One board member said, "personally, I'm not in favor of vacating this road," and another said if the neighborhood is not in agreement, the county should not proceed. A board member recommended documenting the hearing with a resolution number to preserve a formal record of the discussion. The board took no action to vacate the road at that meeting.

The hearing record shows strong local opposition centered on loss of farm access, potential engineering costs (culvert/bridge work), and distrust of private maintenance. The proposal will require further follow-up if proponents return with a formal, detailed plan that addresses access, survey, and drainage concerns.