Cleves committee hears split public comment on reopening Mine Drive, takes no vote

CLEVES VILLAGE — At a third public hearing on the proposed reopening of Mine Drive between jurisdictions, a community committee on Monday collected public comment and survey results but took no vote, saying it will compile feedback and forward recommendations to village council for a final decision in January.

“This committee won’t make a decision,” the moderator said, introducing the meeting and outlining that staff would present survey data and town‑hall input to council. The survey summarized at the hearing reported roughly 85 responses; the moderator said about 51.8% of respondents favored blocking the roadway, roughly 7% were undecided and about 41% favored allowing through traffic. Committee members noted those figures change when the results are broken down by village residents versus non‑residents.

Speakers who opposed opening said the added volume from a nearby development would worsen safety for children and damage neighborhood streets. “I’m very much against the leaving that open,” said a resident who lives on Edgefield (Resident, Speaker 6), arguing the new subdivision’s roughly 54 homes could add an estimated 100 drivers and lengthen existing delays getting out of the neighborhood.

Other residents raised related concerns: heavy construction vehicles, they said, are more likely than passenger cars to accelerate pavement deterioration; mailboxes sited near the connection could create queueing and turning conflicts; and school buses and emergency‑vehicle access require careful consideration. “If there are seven cars waiting down our neighborhood… that’s a problem,” the moderator said when reflecting concerns about queues spilling into local streets.

Those favoring access urged the village to consider traffic‑flow benefits and equity for commuters outside the village. One speaker proposed charging non‑residents for repeated cut‑through use or otherwise compensating the village for added wear, and another suggested a time‑limited pilot opening to gather real‑world traffic data rather than rely on projections. “Then you could know,” Resident (Speaker 2) said of running a trial period.

Committee members discussed practical steps to inform the decision: contracting a traffic‑count vendor to place pressure sensors or tubes that record direction and volumes; considering traffic‑calming or signage if the road is opened; and delaying any opening until heavy construction is complete to avoid damage from dump trucks and oversized loads. Moderator (Speaker 1) said staff would research costs and data availability for traffic counts.

Residents also debated annexation and funding. Participants noted the village rejected a grant application to repair Edgefield and that annexation earlier might have enabled funding for broader repairs; village staff said the homeowners association still retains ownership of the development lots and that the developer has requested a permanent decision and barricades so it can finish punch‑list items and transfer lots to the HOA.

No formal motion or vote occurred at the hearing. Committee members closed the meeting saying they would compile survey breakdowns (including a residency‑based split) and public comments and present them to council for discussion and a likely January decision.

The committee did not set a date for follow‑up public outreach; residents were encouraged to attend upcoming finance committee meetings to monitor plans for Edgefield and other street repairs.