Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Beavercreek council to cancel Shaker Town Road widening, cite trees and property‑value concerns
Summary
Multiple residents spoke against the Shaker Town Road widening and sidewalk/shared‑use path project (Project ID 119964), arguing insufficient notice, potential loss of about 105 trees, significant property‑value impacts and burdensome sidewalk maintenance for homeowners; they asked the council to cancel or reevaluate the project.
Several Beavercreek residents told the city council on May 4 they oppose the Shaker Town Road widening and shared‑use path project (Project ID 119964), which the city estimates at just under $3.9 million and said is funded approximately 62% with federal funds and 38% with city funds.
Gary Dunkel, who identified himself as a 43‑year resident, said the project would widen about 0.65 miles of Shaker Town Road to three lanes, install sidewalks on both sides and upgrade drainage, and that construction was slated to begin in 2027 and finish in 2028. Dunkel said the project would remove roughly 105 trees, reduce driveway depths, increase noise and light pollution, and cause a projected property‑value loss he estimated between $1.75 million and $2 million across affected parcels. He asked council to cancel the project and said initial grant application inaccuracies had not been fully corrected.
Heather Harvey, speaking on behalf of a group of concerned neighbors, said residents were not adequately notified before the grant application and that their objections during the public involvement process had little effect because the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) had already awarded the grant. Harvey said the project originally described two sidewalks (one 5‑ft and one 8‑ft) but that current requirements call for a 5‑ft sidewalk and a 10‑ft shared‑use path; she urged the city to revisit the ordinance that makes property owners responsible for sidewalks and to consider city responsibility for paths wider than 5 feet.
Residents pressed the council for clarity on maintenance responsibilities and alternatives, including declining federal grant funds and using city funds to build narrower sidewalks. City staff said they will review the concerns and follow up; council thanked the residents for speaking and asked staff for clarification on replacement responsibility for shared‑use paths.
No formal action was taken at the meeting; the citizen comments were recorded and council members asked staff to report back.
