Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose gating; Jefferson County board declines to move forward with Quince Avenue change
Summary
After a public hearing with extensive testimony from farmers and neighbors, the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors declined to proceed with vacating or reclassifying Quince Avenue from Class B to Class C, citing missing landowner approval and concerns about emergency access and farm use.
The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors heard nearly three hours of public comment on Feb. 20 before deciding not to move forward with a proposal to change Quince Avenue from a Class B farm-to-market road to a gated Class C road.
The board opened a public hearing after receiving petitions asking for the reclassification or vacation of the road. Dozens of residents, including local farmers and at least one emergency services clinician, spoke at the hearing. Speakers warned that gating or vacating the road would lengthen farm travel, hamper routine agricultural operations and could complicate emergency response.
Bob Deitch, a resident who addressed the board during the hearing, described frequent farm use and shortcuts relying on the road. Samantha Hayden, who identified herself as an ER and ambulance director, said asking medical personnel to use a gate key in an emergency would add time and risk to response. "I would not ask my ambulance service to do that," Hayden said, describing the extra time and safety concerns.
Supporters of gating emphasized littering, trespass and damage from recreational users and occasional large vehicles. Others offered that a Class C designation with gated access could reduce maintenance costs and allow vegetation recovery on the roadway.
Board members noted legal limits on vacating roads. The chair explained that full or sufficient signatures from affected landowners are required to vacate a county road and that, absent those signatures, the board could not proceed. After discussion, a supervisor moved and the board agreed not to proceed with the change at this time.
The board did not adopt any ordinance or formal closure; rather, the matter was effectively closed pending any new petition or fuller landowner consensus. The hearing and the board's discussion highlighted competing interests: neighbors and farmers who rely on the road for daily work versus property owners who want reduced public use onsite.
The board recorded no formal amendments and left open the option for petitioners to refile with required consents.
