Shakertown Road widening

Criticized the Shakertown Road widening project, arguing it relies on outdated 2019 data and increases safety risks unnecessarily.

Raised detailed technical questions about the Shakertown Road design, tree removal counts, traffic volumes, and lack of crash history.

Challenged the consistency of tree counts provided by engineers and urged council to exercise independent oversight.

Expressed concern over losing the rural, tree-lined character of southern Beavercreek.

Suggested smaller scale alternatives for Shakertown Road and asked when the original grant application vote took place.

Delivered extensive criticism against the Shakertown Road project, council transparency, alleged conflicts of interest, and lack of trust in elected officials.

Expressed 100% opposition to the Shakertown Road project, highlighting the removal of 125 trees, stormwater runoff, and wildlife disruption.

Criticized previous council statements dismissing realtors' professional opinions on property values affected by street proximity.

Expressed a total loss of faith in local government processes, questioning why the burden of proof for property impacts is placed on residents rather than the city.

Questioned the core responsibilities of city council members, emphasizing that they are elected to represent resident interests rather than push unwanted roadway projects.

Objected to the Shakertown Road project, cited errors in engineering applications, and alleged a conflict of interest regarding Mayor Don Adams serving as a church elder.

A long-time resident and business owner of 68 years expressed profound sadness and regret over council's actions, stating he is considering leaving Beavercreek.

Voiced deep concern over the Shakertown Road project and urged council to listen to citizens, warning of negative consequences if they proceed.

Read a statement arguing that the Shakertown Road widening will cause severe severance damages and property devaluations in a rural setting.

Recalled walking neighborhood paths as a child and said sidewalks on main roads aren't needed; asked council to back away from the project.

Said the project lacks hard data on traffic or accidents and asked that it be canceled.

Cited crash data showing fewer than one accident every six months and zero pedestrian accidents, calling the project's safety objectives non-issues.

Called the project a waste of grant and taxpayer money that benefits no one and asked it be discontinued.

Cited inconsistent sidewalk widths and shifting plans, said the ten-foot path will look like a road in front yards, and asked the project not be done.

Said the issue is now council's refusal to compromise; asked for scaling back and warned the public record will show council was warned of predicted problems.

Speaking for his in-laws, detailed loss of roughly 50% of their front property, argued widening worsens speeding, and said funds would be better in a rainy-day fund.

Donated time to her husband, then cited construction noise 16 feet from the home and access difficulties during 18 months of construction.

Thanked Council Member Bales for urging a second look; argued grants shouldn't drive planning philosophy and asked whether the city is investing where needs are greatest.

Read through 20 objections including safety data, devaluation, liability, tree loss, and drainage, and asked for a real dialogue meeting and immediate cancellation.

Pro-sidewalk but against the ten-foot both-sides design; asked council to find a compromise that respects long-time residents.

Drives the road twice daily, sees no pedestrian issue, and said a turn lane would invite speeding.

Donated his comment time to Kristy Klipfer.

Said she was discouraged from attending meetings in 2019 and only learned details in 2025; accused engineers of repeated inaccuracies and asked that the project be canceled.

Expressed disappointment that resident concerns seem unheard and asked council to show how feedback influences decisions.

Spoke against the project, saying the city is becoming a concrete city and asking that it be canceled and money used elsewhere.

Questioned why Shakertown needs wider paths than North Fairfield, described her mother's corner lot impacts and appraisal concerns, and asked again for cancellation.

Argued that the project is an irresponsible use of grant money for unneeded lane widening that will only encourage speeding.

Expressed frustration that residents have spent over two years opposing the project with no change in city plans despite high costs and lack of local need.

Requested council to reevaluate and cancel the project, reallocating grant funds to more worthy city needs.

Questioned whether the high cost and disruption of a complete roadway transformation are proportional to the problem, suggesting smaller targeted safety fixes.

Stated the project is confusing, inconsistent, and a waste of taxpayer money that threatens the rural character of Shakertown Road.

Highlighted that Shakertown Road is exceptionally narrow in their section and expressed concern over the 10-foot path encroaching on historic properties.

Argued against widening Shakertown Road, stating it would worsen traffic dangers, destroy his yard, and increase noise.

Urged council to cancel the Shakertown Road project, questioning traffic count accuracy, right-of-way marker discrepancies, and the loss of mature trees.

Stated he has lived on Shakertown Road for 78 years without major issues and opposes the 10-foot sidewalk in his front yard.

Criticized the council for poor fiscal stewardship in continuing a widening project opposed by directly affected citizens.

Strongly opposed the project, noting that traffic counts are half of what they were in 2019 and warning that property values will plummet.

Questioned why a 10-foot shared-use path is required when other city sidewalks are 8 feet wide, noting that grant requirements are driving the oversized design.

Highlighted that the 10-foot sidewalk will sit right up against front doors and reduce property values by 10 to 15%.

Objected to the Shakertown Road expansion, criticizing local funding increases, permanent grading impacts outside easements, tree removal, and questionable traffic counts.

Expressed safety concerns as a senior citizen regarding driveway visibility and shortening due to the road project.

A retired police chief urged council to reconsider the project, emphasizing the irreversible personal cost to homeowners' property and quality of life.

Presented police crash data showing only 10 accidents and zero pedestrian incidents over 5.5 years, arguing the project is a waste of $4 million.

Discussed the 2019 Thoroughfare Plan, questioning why Shakertown is being widened now and pointing out future maintenance burdens for the city.

Calculated property devaluations along Shakertown Road and requested the city place $2.3 million in an escrow account to compensate homeowners.

Opposed the widening, citing noise, danger crossing an extra lane, and a car that has already come close to his house in 58 years there.

Argued Shakertown doesn't meet minor-arterial criteria, residents would lose half their front yards, and the project should be abandoned.

Said traffic data shows no problem on Shakertown, and asked the city to weigh resident impacts — devaluation, safety, 100 mature trees — over its own desires.

Suggested a separate, resident-funded sidewalk project instead, saying the third lane would save commuters less than a minute.

A senior resident worried the ten-foot path would shorten his driveway and create backing-out dangers for him and cyclists.

Voiced disapproval, saying the ten-foot sidewalk and maintenance responsibility would devalue his land.

Detailed safety risks from 75-mph off-road vehicles, disputed the 'misconception' claim about path maintenance costs, and said MVRPC confirmed canceling the project carries penalties but not permanent ones — asking the city to withdraw.

Donated his three minutes of speaking time to Heather Harvey.

Asked that the project be canceled, noting her mother's corner lot loses property on both sides and MVRPC counts show traffic falling since the SR 35 reconfiguration.

Said residents were first told five feet or nothing, now face ten feet they must maintain, hurting home sales and curb appeal.

Called the 10-foot sidewalk excessive and an unfunded maintenance mandate on homeowners; asked the city to abandon the project.

Her 1900s barn sits 13 feet from the asphalt — no room for lanes or sidewalk; she says the road just needs repaving.

78-year resident said traffic dropped since the 35 connection closed and a 10-foot sidewalk would hurt home sales.

Led a coordinated opposition, citing traffic counts far below grant figures, speeding rather than volume as the real problem, unannounced property entries, and demanded the project be put to a vote or canceled.

Spoke for her 93-year-old mother facing land takings on two sides, loss of a mature pin oak, and property devaluation; asked that the project be canceled.

68-year resident said there's no safety crisis, no schools or walkable destinations, and the 10-foot path is out of scale with the neighborhood.

Noted the irony of council tabling a case over a buffer while the project removes his buffer and about nine of his trees.

Called the $4 million project a waste, citing traffic counts 20-48% below grant figures and the loss of 108 trees and shrubs.

Described an unannounced surveyor entering her property, requiring a police call, and vowed to keep fighting until the project is canceled.

Urged council to cancel the project entirely, saying government should protect established neighborhoods and spend wisely.

Detailed projected 10-20% devaluation across 34 homes and two churches, the shifting sidewalk widths, and asked council to vote to cancel the project that night.

Measured 140 feet between house fronts — the tightest he's seen for a third lane — and said the project benefits no one.

58-year resident said he's never needed a sidewalk and a car already came within a foot of his house — widening makes it worse.

A 43-year resident asked council to cancel the $3.9 million Shakertown Road widening project, citing inaccurate grant applications, safety issues, 10–15% property value losses, loss of 105 trees, and $360,000 in future sidewalk replacement costs for homeowners.

Donated her three minutes of comment time to Gary Dunkle.

Donated his three minutes of comment time to his neighbor Bill Keller.

Donated his time to Heather Harvey.

Said residents weren't properly notified before the grant was awarded, ODOT and MVRPC won't allow changes, a 10-foot shared-use path is inappropriate for a residential area, and formally asked the city to reevaluate the sidewalk maintenance ordinance and consider city funding instead of grants.