A gate that has been up for about 30 years on an apparent county road brought into question what constitutes a county road and the court had to determine whether or not to have it taken down.

That issue dominated over an hour of an almost two-hour regular meeting of Clinton Fiscal Court held last Thursday, April 21 with all court members present.

The gate is located on Littrell Road, on what used to be known to many as the Smith Road several years ago prior to road names being changed as a result of 911 mapping and addressing. From discussions learned at the meeting, the gate was apparently erected with consent of both landowners involved with property at the location, Weldon Haddix and the late Vernon Hull, the latter whose widow still lives on the property where the gate is located.

The gate was apparently put up to keep trespassers, etc. off the property.

The situation has recently changed, as Haddix plans to sell property he owns to Ricky Duvall, who indicated he planned to put cattle on the property and needed the gate removed to gain direct access to the property. It was also noted he may not purchase the property if the gate remained up.

Mrs. Hull, as well as her son David Hull and a few others, were on hand at the meeting requesting the gate remain up, noting they were in fear of their mother’s safety living alone there.

Since the road had little traffic and limited residents and apparently had not been maintained by the county in several years, it apparently brought forth the question as to whether or not the road was considered discontinued or whether it was still deemed a county road.

There were also questions and different documentation on just how long the county portion of the roadway is.

There was several questions asked and some emotional sentiments expressed about the issue during the lengthy discussion between the parties involved, judge/executive Richard Armstrong, and the court members.

Attorney Gary Little, who had researched the matter, advised that in his legal opinion, the road was still a county road for two reasons listed under KRS 178.116, which deals with discontinuance of county roads. County Attorney Michael Rains also concurred with Little’s opinion.

The statute reads, in part, “Any county road, or road formerly maintained by the county or state, shall be deemed discontinued and possession shall revert to the owner or owners of the tract of land to which it originally belonged unless at least one (1) of the following conditions exits:

(a) A public need is served by the road;

(b) The road provides a necessary access for a private person;

(c) The road has been maintained and policed by the county or state within a three (3) year period.

The attorneys concluded that parts a and b of the statute existed in the case, thus making the road officially a county road, which according to laws, cannot be blocked to public access.

Little concluded that if the road was needed for public access, it (gate) would have to come down.

Even though the issue was personal to those involved, the entire discussion remained calm and respectful, with Judge Armstrong and court members noting they understood both sides of the issue.

David Hull noted how long the gate had been up since both Mr. Haddix and his father had agreed to it in the 1980s, and said there were no restrictions on it and that everyone who owned property there had a key to unlock it.

At one point, attorney Little stated that if this (fiscal) court didn’t make a decision, it would probably go to the next court, referring to having the issue taken to circuit court for a decision on the status of the road and gate.

At one point, judge Armstrong said, “I have to do what my heart says to do.” He said he had read the statutes pertaining to the issue but promised as long as he was county judge, the road would be maintained and they (county) would do everything they could to keep trespassers out. He continued, “it is a public road and is supposed to be open.”

Hull then stated he would legally grant an easement to the property, and added he wanted to protect his mother. “The land means nothing,” he said. He also indicated there were other access points to the property, but apparently those routes are much longer than the direct roadway where the gate is located.

According to the 911 mapping of the property, the length of the road is 680 feet, but state maps show conflicting sizes.

Another property owner in the area, Sammy Sheffield stated that it looked as if (Duvall) wanted cattle on the property, he would want the gate to remain up to keep the cattle in and from people parking, etc.

At one point late in the conversation, Hull and Duvall had a one-on-one private conversation amongst themselves.

When the meeting reconvened, judge Armstrong said the questions were, “does this road serve public uses, or provide necessary access for a private person?” He also asked if the parties wanted to go that far (circuit court) to settle the issue. He continued, “Mr. Duvall expressed he didn’t want the property with the gate and Mr. Haddix may have to sue to get it down.”

At one point in the meeting, Duvall also expressed the possibility of putting a gate up on (his part of) the property if he purchased it to keep cattle in.

The judge also said he would have liked to have come up with a solution that would be suitable for everyone, but in the end, cited the statutes indicated the road was in fact a county road and recommended the court remove the gate.

After over hour-long discussion on the issue, magistrate Johnny Russell moved, seconded by magistrate Hershell Key, to have the gate removed, with the stipulation to maintain the 680 feet as called for in the mapping and addressing records–and beyond if deeds show the road to be longer. The motion passed on a 5-0 vote with magistrates Ricky Craig, Terry Buster and Mickey Riddle also voting yes. Magistrate Patty Guinn, who is a second cousin of Duvall, abstained from voting due to that situation being a conflict of interest. It should also be noted that, by law, an abstaining vote automatically counts with the majority.

The court then proceeded on to other items of business on the agenda, with details on the rest of the court meeting appearing beginning on page 1.)