Land-access dispute stalls developer-built bridge; county defers while urging private talks

Superintendent Steve Murphy told the Wilson County Road Commission on May 2 that developers were prepared to build a new bridge near the quarry but cannot finish work because a landowner has refused to grant access to a small parcel needed for stream regrading.

The developer representative Quinn said the project has a completed design, permits and a contractor signed (Bell Construction). "We have all our permits in hand. We're ready. We wanna build it," Quinn said, adding the work is needed to meet a "no rise" requirement with the Army Corps and to modernize the crossing.

Quinn told commissioners the contractor needed access to about 850 square feet inside the stream buffer to knock out rock and regrade the channel to meet the federal-state flood standard. "We just need to get in there and knock out some material," Quinn said, and added the developer had offered to compensate the landowner but until recently got no meaningful response.

Commissioners probed whether the county, rather than the developer, should secure access and whether condemnation would be appropriate. One commissioner described the county's prior use of eminent domain to secure right of way and said courts require market-value compensation and can be slow and litigious. "If the county doesn't take a more positive look at using eminent domain, we're never gonna be able to widen the road," the commissioner said, outlining legal steps and the potential for immediate possession followed by litigation over compensation.

Murphy said the developer was willing to build the bridge (he estimated the structure at roughly $2–3 million) but the landowner, identified in correspondence as Stuart Knowles, had been unwilling to meet and, according to Quinn, at times sought what Quinn said were six-figure payments to permit access to the 850-square-foot area. Quinn said the parcel is largely floodplain and that the developer's proposed work would improve water flow and reduce recurring county maintenance costs.

After extended back-and-forth about negotiation and legal options, the board voted to defer the matter to encourage further private negotiation between the developer and the landowner rather than pursue immediate condemnation. Chair moved the motion to defer and the motion passed by voice vote.

The commission left open the option of condemnation if negotiations fail; commissioners said they preferred a negotiated settlement but wanted to avoid losing the developer-built bridge. The board asked staff to continue outreach to the landowner and to report back at a future meeting.