Email link

Respond to editor

Read comments (4)

Share link

County to take over Nestledown road work

Wednesday, April 15, 2009
By Brian Mosely

Bedford County will be taking care of roads at Nestledown Crossing Subdivision following the signing of an agreed order between a homeowners association and the county.

In February, the county commission authorized the county attorney, Ginger Shofner, to negotiate a settlement in the lawsuit filed by attorney Jeff Seckler, his wife, Gina, and the Nestledown Crossing Homeowners Association.

The settlement was contingent on the county being able to get funds from the developer of the project.

The suit was filed late last year in Chancery Court against the county by residents because the county approved a subdivision plat and given that the roads in Nestledown are now in such poor condition, the county could not accept them for maintenance.

The agreed order, signed by Chancellor J.B. Cox on April 3, states all road developed and of record within the subdivision "be declared to be County roads within the Bedford County road system and, as such, the repair and maintenance of such roads shall be the responsibility of the Defendant..." (Bedford County.)

In many large subdivisions, the developer intentionally waits to complete street paving until about 80 percent of the homes have been built. The county allows this, provided the developer puts up a bond to guarantee the eventual completion of the road to meet county specifications.

However, the roads in Nestledown Crossing were built earlier than normal and were designed and built four years ago to meet the county standards at that time.

The county approved the subdivision plat and -- since the road had already been built -- did not require any completion bond. But the county didn't accept the road for maintenance at the time.

But as new homes were built, the road became damaged and the county highway department refused to accept the road until the damage had been repaired and the road once again met county standards.

Residents of the subdivision appeared before the planning commission in June 2008 to complain about the situation, but planners told them at that time their complaint was against the developer, Marvin Parker Jr., not against the county.

At the time, the county said it could not legally do any repair work on the road while it was private property, and couldn't legally accept it as county property until it had been brought up to standard.

Parker argued with the homeowners over whether it was construction equipment or homeowners' modifications that caused the damage. Residents eventually brought the suit against the county for having approved the subdivision plat.

The county commission and Bedford County Road Board both voted in December 2008 to defend the lawsuit rather than settling, but in February, the decision to settle the suit was made by the full commission.

--City editor John I. Carney assisted with this report.

Comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on t-g.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Posted by Brian Mosely and John Carney on April 15, 2009

Brian and John,

Where did you get that false information about 80 percent?

If the county has allowed this they have violated their own published rules and procedures.

Where and how did you concoct the idea that the roads were built earlier than normal?

Just the opposite. The roads were paved exactly when they were actually supposed to be. The placing of a bond is what replaces the normal requirement. Even if the developer can not pave the road before final plat acceptance and has to place a bond, he is required to pave it within 18 months. We completed the project before we asked for final plat approval which is the exact way it is suppossed to be done. It was inspected and signed off as being completed to the County standards and specifications. The road superintendant, like you two guys, only half performed his job. This road was proceduraly required to be accepted in 2004.

Did you know that procedures called for the roads to be carried by the road superintendant to the next monthly meeting once they are paved for county maintenance?

Probably not, it would have required you to put forth a little effort to become at least familar with some of the just plain basics. Perhaps it is a little much to ask you to walk down into the County Zoning Office and read a bit.

Would it help either of you if I brought you a highlighted copy of the published rules and procedures and make sure you both become aware of fact versus fiction? I am more than willing to sit down with you both and try to help you understand the basics you need to know about another subject you again half attempted to do.

Out of curiousity, is there any rules and regulations in the publishing industry that regulates or specifies that at least a minimum of basic core reasearch and investigation be done before you publish your blunderings?

Actually guys, I will do your jobs for you. I will soon learn how to post a link on here that will show you the truth to your half done job again.

By the way, at least learn what someone's name is. That's the least you two could do that would only require a little bitty effort between the two of you and would somewhat increase your chances of passing off as a journalist. I believe you are both capable of that individually and know a combined effort of both of you will succeed in such a trivial undertaking. Only laziness could be your obstacle to overcome.

Let me figure out how to post a link and I will continue my effort to help you tommorrow.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Apr 15, 2009, at 5:23 PM

Brian and John,

Below are links to three pages of Article V - Section 1 - Required Improvements from the Bedford County Subdivion Regulations.

I think you will see it differs somewhat from your concoctions you made in an effort to make a "good" story for your paper.

http://s654.photobucket.com/albums/uu270...

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Apr 17, 2009, at 7:44 AM

John and Brian,

I inadvertedly left off page three earlier and have reposted the correct 3 pages of Chapter V - Section 1. Pay special attention to page 3 since it shows your first recent blundering. I know the truth does not sell papers as good as your concocted half truth blunderings do but consider the fairness of truth first and foremost when you attempt a new one.

Page 1:

http://s654.photobucket.com/albums/uu270...

Page 2:

http://s654.photobucket.com/albums/uu270...

Page 3:

http://s654.photobucket.com/albums/uu270...

I will help you more Monday. Let this soak in over the weekend and we will try a little more next week.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Apr 17, 2009, at 6:55 PM

Residents eventually brought the suit against the county for having approved the subdivision plat.

Posted by Brian Mosely and John Carney on April 15, 2009

Brian and John,

Really,....where did this concoction come from? Did it require the two of you to put your heads together to be so wrong? I have always heard two heads are better than one but....really guuuys?

The County was not sued because they approved the plat. What are you two doing in the backroom all day? The County was sued because the Homeowners knew the County had failed to carry its responsibilty and start providing them with required maintenance. The Homeowners knew the developer was not supposed to be out there 5 years later working on a road that the County was collecting tax dollars on.

Journalist...????

Reporters...???

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Apr 17, 2009, at 7:21 PM