Members of the Cumberland County Planning Commission were reluctant to accept a portion of a private road as a county road, citing precedent and the road’s need for repairs.
But they deferred action for another month to hear more from Cumberland County Road Superintendent Stanley Hall, who was not present for the meeting.
Residents of Byrd Creek Dr. were disappointed to hear the road supervisor no longer supported taking on a portion of the road, saying the county’s lack of maintenance on a bridge downstream from their road had caused damage to a creek crossing on Ward Branch, a tributary of Byrd Creek.
“Most of the damage to our bridge has been due to the lack of upkeep of the county bridge on Highland Lane,” said Larry Seiber, resident of the community, during the Nov. 16 meeting. “When logs back up against it, it backs that water up and floats our bridge.”
Seiber said the water had been backing up for several years when there was a heavy rain.
“Every time they’ve allowed this to happen, it’s damaged our bridge to the extent that you’re asking three or four families to undertake a major financial obligation that they’re incapable to taking on,” Seiber said.
The county road department was at Highland Lane the week following the meeting cleaning out the Highland Lane bridge and removing debris.
Hall had estimated the creek crossing would need two six-foot culverts to carry the water, but he had not had the crossing evaluated by an engineer. He’s prohibited from spending any county money on a private roadway, including investigating the cost of a repair to the crossing. The estimated cost of an engineering study is $600-$700.
Wendell Wilson, 6th District commissioner and representative, said decisions about roads often required removing the “human part” from the discussion.
“We want to help people,” Wilson said. “But we have some standards and some things we have to live up to on the road list. Before we adopt a road, it has to meet county standards.”
Wilson said there are other areas in the county with private roads where residents would like the county’s assistance. He pointed to Renegade Mountain, which is a private road with a bridge.
“I have a hard time not helping my district and helping your district and picking and choosing who I can help and who I can’t,” Wilson said.
County Planner Tommy Lee, with the Upper Cumberland Development District, shared a note from Hall stating he was not in favor of taking the road on if it would cause a conflict with county rules.
However, Hall said they could potentially revisit the issue once an engineering study has been completed.
Terry Lowe, 5th District commissioner, said the planning commission had accepted the extension of several county roads in recent months that did not meet current road standards.
“I don’t know what the difference is,” Lowe said. “They’re tar and chipped roads. They’re not up to county road standards.
“They need this fixed to get emergency vehicles into their houses.”
Lee said those requests involved extending an existing county road, not adoption of a new road.
Linda Clark, planning commissioner, pointed to a subdivision in Fairfield Glade where a former road superintendent had accepted an unfinished road. Years later, the county has struggled to have the road finished by the developer.
“The thing with rules is that they’re fair to everybody,” Clark said. “This is unprecedented to consider adding a structure that is clearly out of repair.”
Clark is a retired engineer who previously worked on projects involving bridges. They require careful study, she said, to ensure culverts are appropriately sized and any environmental impact. The county does not have a staff engineer.
The county also has a long list of roads that need work, Clark continued.
Planning Commissioner John Stubbs said he understood the concerns raised by Clark and Wilson. But, he added, when he purchased property, he didn’t verify he purchased property on a county road.
“My assumption, just like theirs, was I bought it, it’s got an address — that’s the county road. Now, I’m having to pay out of pocket to fix everyone’s road,” Stubbs said. “I can see both sides.”
Lee noted there are many roads in the county that are not on the official road list.
Seiber said it’s possible the road was a county road at one time — it’s believed the county built the bridge in the 1940s. But it’s not included on the county’s official road list, approved each year by the county commission since the 1990s.
However, the month before, under discussion of the county road list, Planning Commissioner John Wedgworth noted several missing roads that had been adopted by the county but were not listed.
“Whose to say our road is not one of those?” Seiber said. “That bridge was put there — you talk to people who was alive when the bridge was put there. They’ll tell you the county built the bridge.”
County Attorney Philip Burnett said the county can’t spend money on the road if it’s not a county road. However, he asked if anyone was paying taxes on the property where the road lies. Tax maps do not show an owner for that road right of way.
He said there could be an argument the county caused the damage to the bridge, and said the residents would need to provide evidence of that damage — photos from heavy rains, for example.
“If you take this on, there needs to be a distinct reason,” Burnett said, referring to setting a precedent. “If I were representing these folks, I would be shouting that to the rooftops.
“I see a difference here, but I want to see proof of what you’re saying about your bridge flooding.”
Clark said, “You’ve got to be careful, because everybody needs to be treated the same.”
Seiber told the committee they were not asking to have the bridge replaced. They were looking to have culverts installed to move water.
Lowe moved to recommend the county adopt the road, but there was no second to the motion.
The panel elected to defer action on the road request until its Dec. 21 meeting, when they hope Hall will be in attendance.
The panel advanced the 2024 county road list to the environmental committee of the Cumberland County Commission despite concerns from Wedgworth some of the information was incorrect.
There are some roads labeled as tar and chip surfaces though he knows the roads are asphalt, Wedgworth said. He also has concerns some roads are not included that should be. Lee said those could be corrected after the first of the year. The county is to review and adopt the road list in January each year.
“I’m concerned we’re going to move something forward that we don’t know is right,” Wedgworth said. “I don’t want to hold the process up, but there’s information on there that’s not correct, and somebody has to have ownership of that.”
Wedgworth said Hall should verify the information on the list, from county road names to surface type.
Clark said the county road list includes thousands of roads. “It’s a massive list,” Clark said.
She said Hall had worked to identify discrepancies and make corrections when those come to light.
The panel has fielded a number of requests for changes to the road list in the past year, from new roads to extending existing county roads. Lee said each request requires publishing a public notice of the required public hearing — and that comes at a cost.
He proposed having a fee established that would cover those costs — $50 to $100. The recommendation will go to the county commission for consideration.
In other action, the panel approved a preliminary plat for a 17-lot subdivision off Dogwood Rd. The subdivision will be served by Grandview Utility District, and the panel asked for a letter from utility that the planned water lines will be sufficient for the property.
Developer Jim Woods said he would have all utilities installed and roads constructed before returning to the panel for a final plat approval.
The panel also approved a variance in the road setback for the Dollar General in Mayland to allow for expansion of the store to a Dollar General Market. The variance is contingent on approval of utility providers the variance will not impede their access to utility lines.