Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Longfield Intersection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press supervisors on property impact and safety for Longfield Road intersection project
Summary
VDOT sketches and staff analysis for an intersection-improvement application on Longfield Road drew public comment about property loss, safety and notification; staff explained temporary construction easements, one-sided widening and potential county liability if the project is later abandoned after state-funded work.
Staff presented VDOT preliminary sketches for a proposed intersection improvement at the southern intersection of Longfield Road (Route 6301) and James Monroe Highway and asked for the board’s direction on a resolution of support for a VDOT funding application.
VDOT consultant Mr. Beal reviewed the plan, pointing out proposed stormwater-management basins and noting most roadway widening would be on one side. He told supervisors that temporary construction easements—shown on the plans as an orange offset line—can be more disruptive than the permanent right-of-way, and that those easements are typically extinguished after construction. He also cautioned that if the county accepts state-funded design or survey work and then cancels the project, the county could become liable to reimburse the state for work done on the county’s behalf.
During public comment, Joan Dickenson Drummond, a property owner adjacent to the intersection, asked how the design would affect the distance between her house and the road and said she feared turning-lane geometry could increase crash risk on her lawn. Richard Wilkins urged the board to act for the “greater good,” noting traffic volumes are rising and warning that waiting would delay improvements by years. Heidi Hopkins, another adjacent owner, said she received only one day’s notice for the meeting and that planned right-of-way lines could leave her house within about 5 feet of a cut slope, a result she said could threaten her foundation.
Supervisors asked Mr. Beal for traffic volumes and design details. Beal said traffic warrants for a signal are evaluated separately and that the proposed improvements are a first step; he also said he met with affected property owners and that the consensus was they could live with the proposed footprint, but that exact property impacts (including temporary construction easements) would be defined in later design and appraisal steps.
The board did not adopt a final agreement at this meeting; staff closed public comment and said it would return with additional information and that staff would follow statutory steps, notice requirements and (if directed) public meetings to memorialize any right-of-way decisions.
