Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press county over proposed tar-and-chip paving in Tolchester; commissioners urge association involvement
Summary
A Tolchester resident submitted a written letter opposing a tar-and-chip proposal for Ohio and Virginia avenues; commissioners and residents debated whether the Tall Chester (Tolchester) Community Association owns the roads and whether the county should act without clear authority and broad resident support. Staff said a 1954 deed appears to convey the roads to the association and recommended the association bring a formal request.
The Kent County Board of Commissioners read a written letter from a Tolchester resident opposing a proposed tar-and-chip project on Ohio Avenue and Virginia Avenue, citing concerns about increased traffic speeds, stormwater runoff and erosion, loss of rural character, critical-area impacts, and insufficient community notice.
Commissioners and residents engaged in an extended exchange about who owns the roads and whether the county should move forward. Several residents said they had been told the Tall Chester Community Association (sometimes referenced as the association) requested the project; other residents said most property owners on the affected roads are not association members and would be disenfranchised by any association-only vote.
One resident said the county uses the road every day to access a pumping station and urged that county-owned access roads damaged by county vehicles be prioritized for repair. County staff said they would verify record ownership and review a 1954 deed and plat that appears to convey the roads to the Tall Chester Community Association. Staff advised that, where the association is the record owner, the association should bring a formal request to the county for tar-and-chip work.
Commissioners stressed they do not want to inflame neighbor conflicts and said they would not approve road work without clear authority or broad community support. Staff offered to meet with association leaders and to look more closely at title records and association bylaws, and commissioners recommended that any resident with a specific complaint about county use (for example, access to a pumping station) email the commissioners’ office so staff can coordinate with public works.
The board did not vote on roadwork; commissioners acknowledged multiple letters of opposition and recommended that the community association convene a meeting and that the county await a formal request or clearer ownership documentation before taking further action.
