Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scott County weighs Fraley Town bridge replacement as residents urge keeping closure
Summary
VDOT staff told the Scott County Board of Supervisors the structurally deficient Fraley Town bridge is planned for a one‑lane replacement funded in a future fiscal year; residents urged keeping the temporary closure and county staff said abandoning reconstruction would require a public hearing and could carry cost implications.
VDOT staff and county supervisors discussed plans for a one‑lane replacement of the structurally deficient Fraley Town bridge and fielded repeated public pleas to keep the bridge closed.
The matter could affect the county’s six‑year secondary road plan and public safety along Fraley Town Road: residents said the temporary closure has reduced crime and dangerous driving, while VDOT staff warned that stopping the project now could trigger costs if design or right‑of‑way work already has progressed.
Mister Palantasuk, the VDOT district staff member who presented the six‑year plan update, said the agency has designed a replacement “such that it would not have any weight limits on it. It would be legal load on it, would but it would just be 1 lane wide.” He told the board temporary easement acquisition work “would start in July of this year in order to obtain those easements.”
Resident Blake Lawson told the board the local community wants the bridge kept closed. “Our whole community… They do not want it open as well,” Lawson said, describing fewer drug‑related incidents and safer conditions for children since the closure.
Palantasuk described the formal steps needed if the board chose to pursue abandoning the reconstruction. He said the county would have to hold a public hearing to take comment, and that abandoning a replacement after VDOT has moved into right‑of‑way acquisition or paid for design work could, in some cases, leave the locality exposed to reimbursement requests. He also noted that an abandonment covering the bridge, rather than the entire roadway, would require a formal turnaround at the closed end: “there has to be a dedicated spot, put out for a turnaround there.”
The board and staff discussed options but did not record a formal binding vote to change the plan at the meeting. Supervisors asked VDOT staff for additional information and agreed to revisit the item next month. Palantasuk said he would “be back here in June” with follow‑up material and additional details about impacts and costs.
The matter remains open: any formal change to VDOT’s plan or a county decision to seek abandonment would require advertised public notice, a public hearing and a board action at a subsequent meeting.
