Parkway neighbors ask South Salt Lake for delay and dialogue on proposed fence, raise fire and access concerns

Sarah Young, a Salt Lake City Council member representing District 7, asked South Salt Lake officials to open a meaningful dialogue with Parkway Avenue neighbors about a proposed fencing and enforcement plan on city-owned land adjacent to their homes. "Significant decisions appeared to be moving forward without meaningful engagement with the people it'll most directly impact," Young said, asking the council to direct staff to engage residents.

Neighbors described long-standing, generational uses of the open land—including fruit trees and community gardens—and warned that a fence could block emergency access and create liabilities. "What if there is a fire out in the field and we're fenced out," asked Parkway resident Sandra Fogerren, requesting specifics on fence height, exact placement and emergency egress plans.

Several speakers cited fire-safety risks if access is restricted. Amy Beckler said neighbors often call the city to request mowing before the Fourth of July and that she is concerned the city may not maintain the parcel sufficiently to reduce fire risk. Keith Carrick said a local fire chief told residents a fence there would "make my job really hard." The council did not provide a technical plan at the meeting; multiple neighbors asked for a postponement or for the city to explain maintenance and emergency procedures before any barrier is installed.

Other residents urged consideration of less intrusive, lower-cost alternatives and asked whether the fence is a prelude to installing tanks or other long-term infrastructure. "Are we just putting in a fence so that we can maybe one day put tanks in?" asked Alexandra Fe, who requested a clear timeline. Several commenters said they have routinely maintained portions of the easement themselves for decades and asked the city to account for long-term maintenance, utility easements and the cost of replacing 50-year-old fruit trees.

Parkway residents framed their requests as a search for compromise rather than opposition to all development. "We want to be a good neighbor. We want to help. How does that look?" Garrett Beckler said.

What happened next: Councilmembers acknowledged the comments and thanked residents for attending. No formal council action on the fence was taken at the meeting; the council proceeded to budget items. Residents asked for staff-led engagement before the city moves forward.

Why it matters: The proposed fencing would directly affect adjacent homeowners' property access, long-standing gardens and emergency response logistics. Neighbors said the change was communicated poorly and asked the city to weigh liability, maintenance costs and public-safety access before proceeding.

Next steps: The council did not vote on the fence at this meeting. Residents asked council members to direct staff to meet with neighbors; any formal staff briefing, revised plans or ordinance would appear on a future agenda.