School board presses to close Dogwood Road, seeks legal clarity after notice error

A school board member urged the Patrick County School Board June 23 to press ahead with plans to remove public traffic from Dogwood Road, saying an incident reported by a constituent — children running into the roadway during an evening recreation event — convinced them the road should not cut through campus. The member said the board had previously voted to seek closure and expected the Board of Supervisors to follow with matching action.

The board’s discussion focused less on whether closing the road would improve safety than on why the process stalled after prior votes. “I don't want that road going through our campus,” the board member said, recounting that the school board had voted at a June 17 meeting to pursue discontinuance/abandonment and that the Board of Supervisors later approved discontinuance with one abstention. The member said constituents had not attended the school-board public hearing and expressed frustration that decisions made in properly held meetings now appear subject to further challenge.

Virginia Department of Transportation representative Mr. McInness told the board the formal process requires VDOT to publish a 30‑day legal advertisement before a discontinuance public hearing; in this case the newspaper posted the wrong project in its legal notices, so VDOT did not meet the statutory advertising requirement. “They published a public hearing but it was the wrong thing,” Mr. McInness said, explaining that the error, not political opposition, is the reason the discontinuance did not progress. He clarified differences between abandonment (property reverts and the entity assumes responsibility) and discontinuance (VDOT quits maintenance but retains the right-of-way and the Commonwealth Transportation Board must approve the action).

VDOT and county staff also described a phased, practical approach for traffic mitigation while the legal process continues: upgrade Crossover Road (a "phase one" surface-treatment and shoulder widening), consider one-way routing or improved signage, and install crosswalk and ADA improvements. The county administrator noted such interim steps could reduce near-term risk while the board pursues formal action.

Board members repeatedly asked for a written legal interpretation to remove ambiguity about whether past motions remain legally binding and whether the Board of Supervisors’ language (discontinuance vs. abandonment) requires additional or different action. Several members said they had requested an Attorney General opinion; staff reported they believed an opinion or at least VDOT legal guidance had been obtained but that the document had not been circulated to all board members, producing confusion.

After extended discussion the board signaled it continues to support moving forward with closing or discontinuing the Dogwood Road segment adjacent to the school and asked staff and VDOT to publish the 30‑day notice so the required public hearing can be scheduled and the issue forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board if appropriate. Board members said they would also contact supervisors to confirm a unified direction and to seek any additional legal clarity required.

Next steps: VDOT must receive formal direction from the Board of Supervisors to advertise the public hearing, publish the 30‑day notice in the proper legal newspaper, hold the public hearing, and then the CTB will consider discontinuance. The board emphasized that community members who support closure should attend the scheduled public hearing, and they asked staff to share the specific steps and timeline once VDOT schedules the notice.

Ending: The board concluded the item by asking staff to "pass on" their continued support to the Board of Supervisors and VDOT and to pursue the procedural steps VDOT outlined — the 30‑day notice, public hearing, and CTB consideration — while exploring interim traffic-safety measures.