Residents of Byrd Creek Dr. will wait a little longer for a resolution to their road woes after the Cumberland County Planning Commission voted to defer action on the request to make the street a county road.
But several members of the commission believe that delay could allow for a faster repair to the street’s bridge — which sparked the effort to make the road a county road — and prevent the commission from taking on a road that doesn’t meet county road specifications.
“I think the path of adding it to the road list has been inappropriate from the get-go,” Linda Clark, member of the commission said. “I feel these people are due an apology because this has dragged on.
“If there are damages that were sustained because the county was at fault, I do not believe that should come to the planning commission. That is a county issue.”
She recommended the panel defer action on the road adoption request to allow time for residents to work with Cumberland County Attorney Philip Burnett on a resolution.
Then, once fixed, the panel could again consider the road for the road list.
“I advise leaving this on the agenda. If we can’t resolve that, you always have the option of adopting the road. You’re just going to have to work out how and way within your rules,” Burnett said.
Larry Seiber, resident, said he had provided photos and paperwork that showed the bridge underwater during heavy rains — a result, he said, of a downstream bridge owned and maintained by the county, being allowed to collect debris.
Terry Lowe, 5th District commissioner, shared photos of the downstream bridge Highland Lane with the rest of the panel.
“This was took the day before they cleaned the bridge out,” Lowe said of a photo showing debris collected under the bridge. Cumberland County Road Superintendent Stanley Hall had crews working on the bridge in November just days after the last meeting of the panel.
Hall said he couldn’t say if the debris under the Highland Lane bridge caused damage to the bridge on Byrd Creek Dr. or not.
He added, “If the county wanted to say it’s a county-caused problem and to fix it or repair it [Byrd Creek Dr. bridge] … if it is caused by the county, we can repair it.”
But, he said he couldn’t recommend putting the road and the bridge on the county road list due to its current condition.
Burnett said residents made a “compelling” argument that damage to the bridge may have been caused by the county not keeping the Highland Lane bridge clear, though he added the county was not and would not admit fault in the matter.
“It is what it is,” Burnett said. “He’s got photographs from 2019 when Highland Lane was flooded, and his bridge under water. I have no doubt that damaged their bridge. You don’t have to be an engineer to figure that out.”
Burnett said he could work with the property owners and Hall to work out a settlement to repair the bridge.
“They would all have to come to the table and all agree to that,” he said.
Seiber said the residents wanted the bridge fixed so that emergency services, such as fire or ambulance vehicles, could reach their homes if needed.
“We came here with the intention of having our road fixed so fire trucks and ambulances could get in our homes, and that’s what we’ll be happy to receive,” he said.
A settlement agreement wouldn’t require any action by the planning commission, Burnett said. However, the panel could keep the matter pending.
But, as discussion continued, Seiber questioned what sort of guarantee residents would have that the road would hold up over time.
“Who’s going to see that the standards of those culverts being put in are up to standard? I just want to know the work is going to be done to a standard so we’re not going to be back here,” Seiber said.
Adding the road to the official county road list would provide sustainability for the residents, Seiber added. Otherwise, the residents would face similar issues in the future.
“It would be awful easy for our families to be kicked to the curb if we’re not on the county road list,” Seiber said.
Burnett said most contractors provide a one-year guarantee on work. However, once repaired, the road adoption request could continue forward, he added.
There was some discussion questioning if the road had previously been a county road, with potential evidence of county work dating back to the 1960s. And, the property the road sits on is not assigned an owner on official tax maps — indicating it is a public road.
“That road is an old, old road,” Lowe said. “It’s quite possible that used to be a county road.”
However, it has not been listed on the county’s official road list since that was adopted by the Cumberland County Commission in the 1990s. Roads must be accepted as county roads before the county can spend money on their upkeep, according to state law.
Lowe did not want to wait to take action on the road adoption. And, he said, hiring a contractor to fix the bridge or install a culvert would be more expensive than having Hall’s department do the work.
“I just feel like we would be better off and cheaper for the county if we went ahead and accepted it on the road list,” Lowe said.
Planner Tommy Lee cautioned that adopting the road did not guarantee repairs would be made. Yet, once adopted, the county would take on the risk for the bridge, Clark noted.
Burnett said taking the road onto the county road list would require a change in the planning commission’s rules because the road does not meet those specifications, including a two-inch layer of asphalt, and the request is not an extension of an existing road.
Lowe said the county has accepted other roads, typically extensions of existing roads, that did not meet current specifications, calling the decision not to take the road “discrimination.”
Several other county commissioners present spoke in support of adopting the road, though they are not members of the planning commission.
Clark said, “Clearly this is a very substantial difference from the roads that we have accepted.”
She said it would have been better to understand the county’s responsibility for the damage early in the request process, rather than bringing the issue to the planning commission, which cannot direct the Cumberland County Commission to act.
Clark moved to table any action on the request, allowing the residents and property owners to work with Burnett and Hall on a resolution. Clark added that would allow the planning commission time to review its road adoption standards.
Kelli Tipton Buchannon supported the motion which failed 3-3, with Clark, Buchannon and Katie Hardt in support and Lowe, Wendell Wilson, 6th District commissioner, and John Wedgworth opposed.
After more discussion, Lowe moved to add the road to the county road list, supported by Wedgworth.
Clark noted that action by the planning commission would not add the road to the official list. It would still have to advance through the county commission’s environmental committee and be approved by the full commission, which might not happen for more than a month, she said.
That motion also failed with Lowe and Wedgworth voting in favor and Clark, Hardt and Buchannon opposed.
“We’re getting nowhere,” Wilson said.
Another motion was made by Buchannon to leave the matter on the planning commission agenda and revisit the road request once a repair was made to the bridge.
Wilson said, “In good faith, if you work with the residents and with Philip and with Stanley, we can fix this … Just as soon as that’s done, we bring it right back here and we put it on the road list.”
Lowe was concerned.
“We’re telling them we will take that road over later on if we put these culverts in. Then we’re saying if that road ain’t up to standard, which is a hot-mix surface, then we will not take it over as a county road. They still won’t have a county road,” Lowe said.
As the vote was taken, he said, “If I had any assurance that would happen, I would vote yes.”
Wilson pointed to seven county commissioners lining the wall of the meeting room. They nodded their heads in a show of support for taking the road.
“I think we will nod heads. Will you nod yours? Sue, will you nod yours giving him assurances if it goes to the road list?” Wilson said.
Commissioners present were Jerry Cooper, 7th District; Charlie Seiber, 4th District; Sue York, 1st District; Darrel Threet, 3rd District; and Tom Isham, 2nd District, along with Wilson and Lowe.
The motion passed unanimously.
The planning commission intends to address road specifications for acceptance of a county road when it convenes Jan. 18.
In other business, the panel approved the final plat for a property subdivision in the Flatrock Motorsports Park development in Westel.
The 28-parcel subdivision includes 27 lots for residential development and one reserved as a common area.
The property is to be accessed by a new private drive. They will be served by a two-inch water line and a proposed private sewer system.
The commission approved the final plat pending presentation of a performance bond for the amount of the infrastructure improvements: $339,200 for road construction and $1.25 million for water and sewer infrastructure, plus 10% annually for inflation.
The panel also recommended a $100 fee for seeking changes to the county road list. Such requests require a public notice to be published advertising a public hearing. The county has been taking on that cost, but the panel recommended requiring those requesting the change pay the fee.