• BEST IN STATE—Senior Courtney Schoen Lewis was named Best PR Student in Utah. Story

Providence homeowners say they’ll fight against road encroachment

September 25th, 2014 Posted in Opinion

Story and graphic by Jared Dangerfield

PROVIDENCE — Homeowners on 2100 South face the possibility of losing 24 to 30 feet of their property when that road is widened, as a result of recent development of Sunrise Acres at approximately 330 West and 640 South.  Tuesday night at the Providence City Council meeting, all eight homeowners who would lose property if the road is widened were present, along with their attorney.

Google Earth image shows the location of the affected homes on 2100 South St. in Providence.

Stevan Baxter, the attorney representing the homeowners, brought his clients’ situation to the attention of the council in hopes that an agreement can be made on how wide the changes to 2100 South will be.

Providence city has a minimum requirement for new roads to be 66 feet wide, but the homeowners believe that 66 feet would take out too much of their property, and in some cases, would cause the road to come just a few feet away from their front porch.

“I’ll step off my front porch take one step and that’s where the road is,” said Rob Thomas, one of the residents who would be affected.

Even though all of the residents affected live on the south side of 2100 South, not all of them are within Providence city’s boundaries, Baxter said. Four of the homes are part of Cache County, and the county has agreed with all of its residents that the road would only need to widened to 50 feet.

If the county, Providence and the homeowners cannot reach an agreement, the road would start from 400 East at 50 feet, then widen to 66 feet through the middle, and narrow down to 50 feet at the end.

After hearing the homeowners’ side of the story, the council decided to move the issue to its Oct. 14 meeting for further discussion and a possible vote. However, the issue was also further discussed by the council Tuesday in a closed executive session.

Baxter says if a conclusion is not reached, his clients will continue to fight the issue until they are satisfied.

“If the parties can’t come to an agreement, the court is going to have to make a decision,” he said.

Baxter also said they are hoping that the issue does not have to go to court, but if it does, his clients will be seeking litigation. The city council will have to decide whether to approve the widening or reject it and come to an agreement with the county and the homeowners.

“If the resolution passes and plans are approved, the parties are left with no options but to file a lawsuit,” Baxter said.


Tags: , , , ,

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.