Marshall County hearing draws sharp disagreement over proposed abandonment of portion of Homes Lane

Marshall County fiscal officials opened a public hearing May 7 on a proposal to discontinue the portion of Homes Lane beyond the county’s currently maintained blacktop.

Deputy Judge Executive Andrew Paggel presented the reviewers’ report, saying the asphalt ends at about 0.806 miles (roughly 4,256 feet) from Oak Level Road and that the county ‘‘sees no public need for its continuance beyond the asphalt.’’ The court had advertised the hearing and placed notices at three posted locations near the road.

Resident Ken Hall, who lives near the blacktop terminus, told the court he supports vacating the short gravel segment beyond the pavement and submitted aerial photos, historical maps and a survey. ‘‘The county has no obligation to maintain or pave it because it serves no public use,’’ Hall said, asking the court to vacate the right-of-way and permit a quitclaim deed to fold the strip back into his property.

Property owner John Helinka and his wife, Karen, strongly opposed abandonment. Helinka presented historical documents he said show Homes Lane was formally accepted into the county road system no later than 1977 with a legal length of 0.85 miles (4,488 feet). He said the road provides access necessary for farming, timber operations, maintenance of electric lines and potential development — including a proposed telecommunications tower near the road’s terminus. ‘‘Homes Lane remains necessary to meet a public need,’’ Helinka said, and he urged the court to deny the proposed discontinuance, remove obstructions, and restore maintenance to the road’s full legal length.

Helinka and his wife said they had documented repeated county maintenance up to the historical terminus and cited correspondence from county staff and a county attorney email asserting the county had not abandoned the road. They argued the county’s notice relied on the current extent of pavement rather than the road’s legal acceptance and urged correction of internal record inconsistencies.

Court members and staff discussed the legal framework during questioning. County Attorney Jason Darnell and others referenced KRS 178.070 (the statute addressing discontinuance by fiscal court) and KRS 178.116 (provisions addressing abandonment and petition rights for adjoining owners). Court staff noted the legal process distinguishes abandonment by operation of law from an affirmative discontinuance by order of fiscal court and that adjoining landowners may petition to preserve private access under certain mechanisms.

Representatives for the Halls denied claims of deliberate obstruction and characterized the disputed portion as ‘‘roughly 47 feet’’ of gravel that had historically functioned as a private driveway. ‘‘We’ve never been called bad actors,’’ one Hall representative said, asking the court to view the site in person.

The hearing record includes competing measurements and documentary claims: reviewers measured the current asphalt terminus at about 4,289 feet by wheel measurement, while Helinka presented archival inventory material and county road lists he says support a 4,488-foot legal length. Several residents asked the court to correct county records and to enforce removal of obstructions rather than to effect a discontinuance that, they argued, would reward private encroachment.

The fiscal court did not render a final legislative decision during the hearing; after public comments and a brief rebuttal period the court recessed to executive session to discuss litigation and personnel matters under KRS 61.810. The public hearing was closed and no vote on discontinuance was recorded in the meeting transcript.

Next steps: the court’s legal staff and road department will have the documentation and testimony on record; interested landowners indicated they plan to file or pursue statutory petitions described in KRS 178.116 if the court proceeds with a discontinuance.