Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
Crossing guards and flashing lights will be up on the railroad tracks on CR 400W in Gravelton, northwest of Milford, within a few years.
That's sooner than County Highway Department Engineer Rob Ladson expected, but not something everyone necessarily wants. In order to get the guards and lights on 400W, the train crossing on Gravelton Road will be closed.
"If this proposal is not accepted, the chance of 400W receiving crossing gates and lights is very low," Ladson told the county commissioners Tuesday.
Closing Gravelton Road is part of a nationwide initiative to consolidate crossings on roads that have low traffic or are dangerous. The total cost will be $150,000 for the project, but the county would have to pay only 10 percent, or $15,000. By closing Gravelton Road, the county will not have to even pay the $15,000 because CSX Transportation will pick up the tab.
"It's a proven fact that crossing consolidation does save lives," said CSX Transportation Operation Lifesaver Presenter J.R. Kern.
Ken Sawyer, representing Milford EMS, was one person on hand opposing the project. He said it is important to keep the crossing open in event of an accident.
"We look at it as a situation of access," Sawyer said.
Sawyer said that if an accident should occur, the minutes saved by using Gravelton Road would be beneficial. By closing the road, it would be a longer drive and take more time to respond to an emergency on the other side of the tracks.
"During an accident, those minutes are important," he said.
Lawrence Sawyer owns a farm near the crossing. He said he estimates that if they close Gravelton Road, it would be an extra 1,000 miles a year that he and his wife would have to drive. He also said that his milk carrier is opposed to it because it would require backtracking and extra driving for her, too.
"I have land around that road. I can't understand why they want to close it," said Harlen Beer, another remonstrator. "The crossing's been better than it has in 40 years and I have been driving on it for that long. There's more traffic on Gravelton Road than the others."
Beer said that if the crossing is closed, the road may as well be vacated.
Beth Krull, Jefferson Township trustee, said she sees both sides to the problem.
"I'd like to see the road stay open. I'd like to see the crossing guards and lights also," she said.
Kern said he apologizes for any inconvenience the closing will cause. However, he said the overall safety of the closing for the county outweighs any extra mileage driven.
"By upgrading 400W with two gates and lights, we can go a long way to making your county safer," he said.
Ladson said one reason the county will be able to get guards and lights up on 400W sooner is because CSX attached its name to the project. The Indiana Department of Transportation has final say as to what county gets what guards and lights and when they get them.
"I believe it's in the best interest of the majority of the people of the county to accept this proposal," Ladson said.
Commissioners Avis Gunter and Eddie Creighton voted to approve the proposal. Gravelton Road will remain open, however, until the guards and lights go up. The commissioners also agreed that the road could be vacated if the three property owners along the road agree.
Commissioner Brad Jackson abstained from voting. Jackson said that, overall, it's good for the county to get the crossing guards and lights. But, he also doesn't believe a government body needs to go in and close a crossing that locals have been using for years.
In another discussion at the meeting, Herschel Rainwater proposed a dog ordinance.
He asked for such an ordinance earlier this year and, this time, brought supporters. Remonstrators against such an ordinance voiced their opposition after the pro-ordinance group.
"I feel it's gotten worse and I'd like to address it again," Rainwater said.
Rainwater read the ordinance that he said is "narrow in scope."
He said 74 strays were taken to the Animal Welfare League on Monday alone. Rainwater asked the commissioners if it would take a serious accident before the they would act and animal control was, in fact, a county function.
"Animal control is a county function. No matter how much we don't want it to be, it is a county function," Rainwater said.
He proposed several options to the county to fight the animal nuisance problem. The first time a complaint is received, the owner could receive a nuisance notice from the sheriff.
"The sheriff's department don't have a full agenda at night, they can type these up then," he said.
Rainwater said the second time it happens, a phone call could be made and the person charged $50. A third complaint against an animal would result in the impoundment and redemption of the animal. The owner would be charged by the county for the work.
"I'm against the people who own dogs and harass their neighbors with them," he said.
"We can do anything we want to, but one thing. That one thing is that we can't violate other people's rights."
Ralph Dodson, Silver Lake, said the problem near his home is becoming unbearable.
"I can't sit outside at night, I can't open my window," he said.
He said he hired an attorney to deal with the problem because it has gotten so bad.
"I called animal control. I called the police. If I call about loud noise, they're right out there, but dogs are another thing," he said. "I have people who live miles away from me who ask how I can put up with all the noise."
Walter Corbin, North Webster, said he lives adjacent to people who have 30 wolves. The North Webster ordinance wasn't effectively working because the town put in what he called a "grandfather clause." Corbin presented a petition of 73 people whom he said are in favor of a county ordinance.
"I don't see why our rights have to be inundated by barking dogs all the time," Corbin said.
"We've lived in this community for 20 years and I didn't have a problem until the last two years."
Sharon Galloway, who complained to the commissioners a month ago, appeared again Tuesday.
"You have a lot of people complaining out here. There definitely needs to be something done."
Dan Engle, who lives next door to Rainwater, presented a petition of 26 people opposed to an ordinance. Engle has a Doberman pinscher.
"I don't feel like I have to be punished because I own a dog," he said.
Rainwater and Engle engaged in an argument before Gunter reminded them that the forum was not a place to hash out personal disagreements.
Lisa Wagoner, who's also against a dog ordinance, told the commissioners she will not be intimidated by anyone. She said it is important that dog owners not be punished because their pets serve several purposes.
"I'm glad I have (my dog) because I choose not to have a gun in my house. It's an alarm for me when my dog barks," she said. "I don't want to see an ordinance passed."
Randy Rhodes, proprietor of Rhodes Countryside Kennel, said Rainwater, nor anyone else, has contacted him about dogs barking or nuisances. He said the only way he knew there was some discussion on dogs was through the newspaper.
"He's never contacted me about the dogs," he said.
Rhodes takes care of many dogs in the county, he said. For 20 years, he has run a kennel and obedience training school.
"I try to make better dogs for the community," he said. "These are family pets that live in the house."
After the two sides had their say, Gunter said, "By after the first of the year, we may be able to address this." Gunter also promised to visit Dodson's place to check out the problem.
