Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Closure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Patrick County to reverse State Road 694 closure, cites process and safety concerns
Summary
A Patrick County resident told the Board of Supervisors the September vote to close a portion of State Road 694 (Dogwood Road) lacked adequate local advertising and ignored community alternatives; the speaker presented a 466-signature petition and called the vote 'illegal.'
A Patrick County resident used public comment to ask the Board of Supervisors to reconsider a September 8, 2025 vote to discontinue a portion of State Road 694, saying the decision was made before community alternatives were considered. “I come to you today to protest the closing of a portion of State Road 694 that was voted on by the board of supervisors on 09/08/2025 to be closed,” the speaker said.
The commenter said the county’s filed resolution cites concerns that the road “no longer provides sufficient public convenience to warrant maintenance at public expense,” but disputed the rationale and pointed to safety for schoolchildren and daily use by residents and merchants. They said the county advertised the board action in a single weekly paper on Aug. 27, 2025, and argued that state law requires broader publication in two local papers for two weeks before a final vote.
The speaker said community members offered alternatives — some similar to options presented by the Virginia Department of Transportation at an earlier meeting — and reported collecting 466 signatures opposing the closure. The resident asked the board to re-open consideration of alternatives and to ensure the decision is properly noticed before any final discontinuance of maintenance.
The comment also raised broader concerns about representation in the earlier vote, saying outside persuaders influenced the outcome and that the voters in the affected Mayo River district should have been the ones to decide. The speaker asked the chair to bring planning-commission proposals back to the board for a vote and urged further public comment.
The board did not take an immediate formal vote in response to the public comment during the meeting’s public-comment segment; the chair closed public comment and moved on to new business.
