Rural Colfax couple say Jasper County is wasting money relocating fence to give path to property owner

Mary and Gary Adams have lived in their log cabin at the end of a dead-end road in rural Colfax for almost 40 years. Five acres of land contain their home, several fruit trees, a gazebo, a shed with chest-high stacks of firewood outside and a sloped pasture where the horses and colts used to roam. They call it paradise.

For as long as the Adams lived there the hilly road leading to their property has stopped dead in its tracks shortly past their driveway. Now they have been told by Jasper County officials that the road will need to be maintained and extended past their property to grant access to an adjacent, landlocked 20-acre parcel.

But Mary, 73, and Gary, 76, are adamant that there is no road left to maintain, only a small path along the edge of their eastern fence line. The rest of it, they said, has eroded away to a nearby creek, creating 75-foot ravines in some areas. The road base can’t even be seen with all the grass and trees grown over it.

To them, it is baffling how anyone can come to their property and say there is still a county road there. That is an argument the Adams brought with them to the board of supervisors meeting on Feb. 6 at the county courthouse, in order to oppose a request to accept quotes for a fence relocation. Their fence.

Jasper County Engineer Michael Frietsch told supervisors there is about 300 feet of fence down the middle of the county right-of-way at West 124th Street North. He said a county resident, later identified as Chris Cook, wants access to his landlocked parcel. Frietsch said the fence needs to be moved.

“So that way we can reinstate a path through that Level B,” Friestch said before presenting two quotes to the board of supervisors, the lowest bid of which came from R&R Fencing & Supply for a little more than $6,100, but the engineer recommended the higher bid of $9,500 from Wagner Custom Fencing.

Despite the county engineer recommending the higher quote, supervisors were ultimately in favor of the lower bid. Either way, Mary and Gary were very much against the relocation. Before putting the matter to a vote, supervisors opened the discussion to the public. The couple didn’t hide their frustrations.

“I would like to know what the purpose of this is. What is the need for county funds to be spent on this when there is no road there,” Mary said.

Supervisor Brandon Talsma said, “There is a road there.”

“There is no road there,” she argued. “You have been out. He has been out; the road engineer has been out. They said they could not put a road in there.”

However, Talsma argued the road has never been officially vacated, and there has been no legal documentation proving so. The board of supervisors chair said he and several secondary roads employees combed through mountains and mountains of paperwork trying to find some form of road vacation form.

“That stretch of road has never been vacated,” Talsma said.

Mary then questioned if the county will take care not to damage the berm they paid for. According to an easement agreement obtained by Newton News, the Adams participated in a federal program in 1986 to construct a soil conservation drainage tile on the boundary line of their property and an adjoining property.

The easement agreement was sent by mail by then Jasper County Recorder Nancy Potter. When the soil erosion project was completed in June 1986, aerial photographs were taken of the property three months later, showing the road ending where it ends today: outside the home of Mary and Gary Adams.

The couple said there is not enough space for a vehicle to pass through on the small stretch of land that — at one point in time — might have been a ditch of or the very edge of the West 124th Street North. Mary said she and her husband use a lawnmower to keep a small path along the fence line in order to maintain it.

“That is all the width there is,” she said. “Even if you take the fence out, the other side falls all the way along. There are wash out areas that are in the roadway. There are huge oak trees and other trees. There are trees all along the other side. If you take those out we’re going to have a wash out area.”

Talsma said the county isn’t altering the road, but supervisors are simply going back and reestablishing the pathway as a Level B road, which is what it “should have been maintained as over the years.” But Mary was persistent that no vehicle would be able to pass along the sand berm without filling in dirt.

Frietsch said, “Once we move the fence then we will determine an alignment for the path to get back there through the Level B.”

Gary argued he and his wife have gone to the federal, state and county governments looking for maps and plans that say there is a road that goes beyond their property and connects to the other side of West 124th Street North. Most maps, including those found on Google, do not identify them as connected.

Talsma later pointed out that a large portion of West 124th Street North was, indeed, vacated. From what he could find, there has been no documentation that states that Level B stretch to Cook’s property was vacated. If it hasn’t been vacated, then it is still a road, he said.

While the county likely would not go so far as to connect the two pieces of road, the top half’s southern point would be extended to meet Cook’s property. Talsma alleged the county’s maps are not legally binding documents, rather it is the resolutions that either create or vacate a road.

“In this specific situation, there’s been no documentation provided that shows that stretch of road was vacated when the rest of it to the south was,” he said. “There are clear meeting minutes, resolution numbers stating that the road to the south of your guys’ property line has been vacated.”

The Adams alleged the county is deciding to spend money moving a fence just to allow one person — property owner Chris Cook — access to his land for hunting. But the couple allege he does have access to the property, particularly because he owns the 40 acres to the south of the 20-acre parcel.

Prior to the issues currently facing the county and the Adams, the couple claim they were neighborly with Cook and granted him informal access to his land through their land, but no legal easement was established. Gary said he even built a gate on the south end of his fence line to allow Cook to enter his property.

Mary alleged Cook has two other access points to the property and would thus make the road extension and fence relocation unnecessary. She also claimed when Cook purchased the property he would have needed to get legal access in order to get the loan from the bank.

“You say none of these maps or anything make any difference, but the bank had to use something to determine he had no access, except for where they gave it to him,” Mary said. “Now, he also has opened up access on the other corner on the south side of his property with the help of the county.”

Mary alleged Cook is trying to get access to the west side of the property, too.

Neither the county nor the property owners were going to win the argument, or have the other side agree to what they say. But Mary pressed on, saying she lived in the area for 50 years, pays her taxes and is a good citizen who correctly addressed the erosion near her property.

“I used my own money and funds to improve my property,” she said. “It’s a beautiful place. I love it. I bought it. My property dead-ended on my property. It did not go through. It has been that way forever. There is a (Level) A road before you get to the B road, it has not been maintained the 50 years I been there.”

Talsma said they did find an agreement between secondary roads, the federal government and the Soil and Water Conservation district to allow the erosion mitigation project to take place. Frietsch said the project did not change the disposition of the right-of-way, just the drainage easement across it.

Also, Frietsch later spoke to the maintenance of the 100 to 150 feet of Level A road that is still left before it switches over to Level B.

“So we just stop short of that because there’s really no driveways or houses anywhere beyond that, so it doesn’t make sense to continue any further than the last driveway is typically what we do,” Friestch said. “Once this fence is moved and we get in there, we’ll clear those trees out where that A and B is at.”

Talsma tried to put the conversation back on track, saying the western access isn’t the county’s concern. Rather the county is more concerned it has a Level B road that was supposed to be maintained as such but has not been for some time. He said the county could be liable for impeding access to one’s property.

“That’s what the issue is,” Talsma said.

Mary responded, “He has access to that property in two different places.”

“It doesn’t matter. If it has not been vacated it’s still supposed to be a road.”

Talsma and Frietsch suggested their main motivation is corrective maintenance, to maintain the roads as they should have been maintained for the past several years. Level B roads, they said, may get bladed once a year by secondary roads crews, but Mary said there is no ability to blade it, saying the path is too narrow.

“There is no width there for a vehicle to drive down there,” she said.

Frietsch, again, said when the fence has been moved then secondary roads can make the road. Mary asked if the county would be obligated to build a turnaround on the dead-end road for safety reasons. Talsma said the county is not legally obligated to provide turnarounds.

Although Talsma was pushing back on a lot of points made by the Adams, he said if they have documentation that clearly states the 300-foot stretch of road has been vacated, then to please provide it to the board of supervisors. Until then, the board has to operate under the premise that it is Level B county road.

“All the records thus far back up that claim,” Talsma said. “…The concern is the county is at legal … obligation of impeding someone’s ability to be able to access their property because of a failure to maintain the road to the status it is supposed to be maintained at.”

Mary said, “Although it has been not done for 40 years.”

“That doesn’t matter.”

Talsma said in order to vacate a road it requires the consent of all surrounding landowners, because if not the county could be creating a situation to where a landowner does not have the ability to access their property. He guarantees that is why the 300 feet of road was not vacated with the rest of the southern stretch.

“Because that’s exactly what it was going to do,” he said. “That’s why it didn’t get vacated then. That’s why we have stretches of Level B and Level C all over the county that still haven’t been vacated … What do you want us to do? You’re telling me that road has been vacated.”

Yet all the evidence uncovered by county officials points to the road still being classified as a road. Again, Talsma welcomed documentation stating it is vacated. Nothing would make him happier and the county engineer happier, he said, to learn that stretch of road has been vacated.

Frietsch explained the county will clear out the shrubs and trees as need be to at least get a 10- to 12-foot-wide path to Cook’s property line.

“We will find the path of least resistance in that 40 foot of right-of-way that we have to get a 10- to 12-foot lane back to him,” Frietsch said.

Mary said, “Which will be toward our side because we have maintained it.”

“Yup.”

“So what if you can’t get that without putting a whole bunch of fill in?”

“Then we’ll have to bring some dirt in.”

If the county ignores this access issue, Talsma claimed the county could be met with a lawsuit over failure to maintain.

Supervisor Denny Stevenson suggested the Adams get nearby property owners to sign forms to officially abate the road. Mary was doubtful Cook would sign it because he benefits from the extended road. Stevenson said he understood what the couple is saying, but the county has to correct its error.

“We gotta do what we gotta do, even though you don’t like it,” he said.

Talsma agreed, and he was also receptive to the idea of acquiring signatures from landowners. Mary claimed Cook is friends with Talsma, and that the supervisors chair knows he will not sign it. Talsma said he doesn’t know that for sure and that he tries not to talk to him about it.

Still, Mary criticized the county for what she felt was a waste of money. Stevenson said she was not listening to the board of supervisors and that they were all just talking in circles. He does not disagree with the Adams family, and he would love not to spend the money on the fence relocation.

“But it’s where we’re at now because of whatever mistakes were made in the past,” Stevenson said. “I’m sorry, but just because you want it doesn’t make it so. We have to follow certain procedures and that’s what we have to do. And you’re not hearing us. We’d love to be able to do it.”

Talsma reasoned it goes beyond just this particular situation.

“The county has spent a lot of time and a lot of money having to go back and fix mistakes from years past,” he said. “It’s not that we want to. It’s oftentimes we have to go back and we have to spend money, time and resources to fixing mistakes from the past.”