Dock Road debated

Future of Madison Twp. extension project in question

Dock Road in Madison Township continues north briefly after it intersects with Lake Shore Boulevard — about 163 feet — before the road dead-ends into a guardrail with Lake Erie lying shortly beyond.

The future of this extension is in question, however, after a group of residents submitted a petition to Lake County commissioners to have that portion of the road past the Lake Shore Boulevard i nt er s ecti on vacated.

If the vacation of the road is approved, the guardrail would be relocated to the point immediately south of the requested vacated portion, according to a statement of support attached with the petition.

Safety vs. beauty

“Safety trumps that view,” Dennis Broderick, who initiated the petition, said at a public hearing in front of the commissioners Oct. 1. “It is true that the end of Dock Road does provided a lovely view of the lake, but safety ought to be the paramount concern here and that is what the petition is really all about.”

Those opposed to the vacation of the road have said that the safety concerns are exaggerated and would eliminate the increasingly rare access to a view of Lake Erie from a vehicle.

The decision is ultimately in the hands of commissioners, who through the Ohio Revised Code are required to go through a process that includes an engineer’s report and a public hearing.

“We didn’t initiate this, but now this board has to play Solomon here,” Commissioner Daniel P. Troy said.

Twelve signatures were collected for the initial petition

that was submitted to the commissioners June 8. An addendum with four more signatures was submitted June 24, after Broderick was informed that two of the signees of the initial petition were not the owners of their property.

“Living right there next to the portion of Dock Road that’s in question, I can’t exaggerate the number of cars that go down into the northwest end of Dock Road,” Broderick said at the public hearing. “Because they’re lost and they back up, either onto our property and turn around on our grass, or they back up all the way south on Dock Road to where Lake Shore is and turn around there.”

In the 10 years that Broderick and his family have owned the house there, he said they’ve seen cars veering off into their yard and about two years ago, one car ended up halfway down the bank near the lake.

The Brodericks’ property includes 940 Dock Road, which was purchased in June 2015. A house that was on the 940 Dock Road property, which sat along a portion of the road in question and had a driveway that exited out onto it, was condemned by Madison Township in 2014 and the house and driveway were removed “by direction of Madison Township” in September 2014, according to the statement in support of the petition.

“A real dangerous circumstance is that the northernmost end of Dock Road is so close to Lake Erie that it’s a terrible accident waiting to happen where somebody loses control of their vehicle and ends up in Lake Erie,” he said.

Another petitioner, Denia G. Barrett, echoed Broderick’s concern in a written correspondence with the commissioners.

Barrett’s family has owned a home on Lake Shore Boule- vard (three houses west of the portion of Dock Road in question) since 1979. On the first night they lived at the residence, they were awakened when a motorcycle failed to recognize that the road did not continue and crashed into the barricade at the end of the road extension.

“These destructive acts occurred while a house still remained on the corner property,” she wrote. “When the house existed, the Dock Road extension had a useful purpose as it led to the driveway and garage of that house.”

What vacating involves

When a road is vacated, the land is always divided among the abutting properties, said Lake County Chief Deputy Engineer Bruce R. Landeg. In this case, the Brodericks’ property would add 0.174 acres and Lake County, which operates a water treatment facility to the east of the road, would add an additional 0.18 acres.

According to the County Engineer’s Office, “because of the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure, future drainage considerations and other utilities, a right-of-access easement is being reserved over the vacated road for the benefit of Madison Township and Lake County.”

The easement, Landeg said, precludes future construction, such as building a structure, within the (potentially) vacated land.

The Lake County Engineer’s Department made a site visit Sept. 18 and has made a recommendation that the proposed vacation be approved.

Opposing views

Brenda Spadaro, who has lived on Lake Shore Boulevard for more than 20 years, said at the public hearing that she sees the end of Dock Road twice a day when she walks her dog.

“Often I see an older couple just sitting there looking at the lake, especially near sunset,” she said at the Oct. 1 hearing. “I’ve seen people sitting there early in the morning, they just sit there.”

Spadaro added that she believes the safety concerns are exaggerated.

Don Galea, a Grand Avenue who spoke at the Oct. 1 public hearing, also said he believes the safety concerns are embellished.

“Of course a lot of cars are down there because they go there to view the lake,” he said, adding that many of those who go to view Lake Erie are handicapped. Nearby Arcola Creek Park, he said, is inaccessible to handicapped people down at the lake or even to view the lake.

“It’s public land, I think the commissioners should take a long range view of the thing and keep it in the public trust,” he said.

Since the Oct. 1 hearing, Spadaro and five others have canvassed local residents to solicit opposition to vacating the section of Dock Road with a petition of their own.

The group collected 316 signatures in total to retain the road in question. Spadaro said a copy of Broderick’s petition, in its entirety, was given to each person soliciting signatures. Each person approached was given the opportunity to read the petition. Two of the people who signed Broderick’s petition, Frank Evans and James Carn, rescinded their

support after reading his petition in detail, Spadaro said.

Included with Spadaro’s petition is a letter from Marjorie N. Shook of the Madison Historical Society, who said that because of the historical significance of the area, she believes the “public would be best served by having it remain as is.”

Madison Township Trustee Pete Wayman is also opposed to the vacation and wants to see the road remain as is for now. He said he hopes that the commissioners don’t make a kneejerk, short term decision to the property’s future.

“I just believe a vacation shouldn’t be granted for one man’s wish,” he said.

Madison Township Administrator Lee Bodnar said at the Oct. 1 public hearing that the other two trustees, Ken Gauntner and Max Anderson are not opposed to the vacation.

The commissioners are collecting public input on the proposed vacation.

“We are going to review the comments and make a decision when the board feels we’ve received all the proper information we need,” Troy said.