20130800_Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Third Request_20151112

Wanucha, Dave
From: Holder, Michael L
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:21 PM
To: Stacey Triplett
Cc: Wanucha, Dave; Latham, Tim; Chambers, Marla J; Senator Shirley Randleman;
Holbrook, Alex; Palermo, James R; sheiligl; bbriscoe
Subject: RE: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Third Request
Attachments: Triplett response 11-6-15.docx
��
I apologiz� for my d�lay in r�spons�. Pl�as� find attach�d my r�spons�. Thanks for your pati�nc�! Pl�as� advis� if I can
b� of furth�r assistanc�.
�:i�
From: Stacey Triplett [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:42 PM
To: Holder, Michael L
Cc: Wanucha, Dave; Latham, Tim; Chambers, Marla J; Senator Shirley Randleman; Holbrook, Alex; Palermo, James R;
sheiligl; bbriscoe
Subject: Re: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Third Request
Mr. Holder,
I have waited very patiently for a response from you. I understand that yesterday was Veterans Day
but you said Friday November 6th that you would respond by Monday November 9th. I'm sure as you
well know this is November 12th. I expect a response by the end of the day.
If that is not possible can you at least e-mail me and let me know when you intend on responding to
my issues.
I have also included new pictures taken on November 10th of the lack of drainage.
From: "Holder, Michael L" <mholder(a�ncdot.qov>
To: "Stacey Triplett" <sdtrip(a�wilkes.net>
Cc: "Latham, Tim" <tim.latham(a�ncdenr.qov>, "Dave Wanucha" <dave.wanucha(a�ncdenr.qov>,
"marla chambers" <marla.chambers(a�ncwildlife.orq>, "shirley randleman"
<Shirlev.Randleman(a�ncleq.net>, "sheilig1" <sheiliq1(a�triad.rr.com>, "bbriscoe"
<bbriscoe(a�wfmv.com>, "Holbrook, Alex" <alex.holbrook(a�nc.qov>, "jrpalermo"
<irpalermo(a�ncdot.qov>
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 2:51:17 PM
Subject: RE: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Second Request
��
I hav� had a v�ry busy vv��k vvith th� �oard of Transportation in tovvn. I vvill r�spond to your �mail by clos� of busin�ss
Monday.
�:i�

From: Stacey Triplett [mailto:sdtripCa�wilkes.net]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 9:37 AM
To: Holder, Michael L
Cc: Latham, Tim; Wanucha, Dave; Chambers, Marla J; Senator Shirley Randleman; sheiligl; bbriscoe; Holbrook, Alex;
Palermo, James R
Subject: Fwd: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Second Request
Mr. Holder,
Some recipients of this e-mail have said they could not open the traffic count data page so I have
removed that attachment.
I understand that you are busy and that you may think this is not a big deal but to us it is.
You have had several days to respond and come up with a solution to these issues.
I would appreciate a response asap.
Thank you
Have a good day.
Stacey Triplett
From: "Stacey Triplett" <sdtrip(a�wilkes.net>
To: mholder(a�ncdot.qov
Cc: "Latham, Tim" <tim.latham(a�ncdenr.qov>, "Dave Wanucha" <dave.wanucha(a�ncdenr.qov>,
"marla chambers" <marla.chambers(a�ncwildlife.orq>, "jrpalermo" <irpalermo(a�ncdot.qov>, "Hamby,
Brian K" <bhambvCa�ncdot.qov>, "bbriscoe" <bbriscoe(a�wfmv.com>, "shirley randleman"
<shirlev.randleman(a�ncleq.net>, "alex holbrook" <alex.holbrook(a�nc.qov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 3:41:14 PM
Subject: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305)
Mr. Holder,
There are several vital issues left unresolved regarding the Hackett Town Road SR1305 paving
project that require immediate attention; especially since this proposed $1,000,000 project has now
exceeded $1,500,000 of the taxpayers money for a 1.3 mile project on a road with only 3 residences.
1. SPEED LIMIT SIGNS SHOULD BE REQUIRED for this 2-lane, curvy, rural back road. When this
road was gravel/dirt, traffic was very light. Most drivers maintained a reasonable speed because of
loose gravel, and during the past 20 years only a few minor accidents have occurred.
Now, many individuals driving down Hackett Town Road are exceeding
the state guideline of 55 mph when no speed limit is posted. Already there has been one wreck due
to excessive speed. If the DOT does not at least post recommended speed limits for this roadway,
there will be many more based upon how drivers are now not only careening but passing on Hackett
Town Road. It is our understanding that Hackett Town Road does not meet the criteria for a speed
limit due to only 3 residences. We find this ironic, to say the least. After all, NCDOT Division 11 didn't
follow the criteria and rules that were needed to prioritize and then pave this road.
For example, prior to project start-up, the DOT Division 11 Office could not produce any records to
support our field inventory score, specifically the traffic count of 100. A month later, Mr. Pettyjohn
revealed this count was from the year 2000. When I expressed shock and skepticism about this
figure, Mr. Pettyjohn told me that he had known people to run back and forth over the traffic counter

to inflate the counts. I asked him to redo the count because I knew it was wrong and evidently so did
he, but he refused. . This 100 ADT doubled in 2 years. See attached documents. This count should
have been a red flag to Division 11 as there were no new homes, businesses, churches, etc. on or
abutting this road. There was no reasonable explanation for our traffic count to double to 100. This
road should have never made it into the top 200 in Wilkes County had it been prioritized correctly and
by law.
I would also like to point out in an article written in the Mt. Airy news what Mr. Pettyjohn said:
By Randy Walker
Staff Writer
(snipped)
"Although dozens of miles of dirt roads are paved every year, there are approximately 128 miles of
unpaved secondary roads in Surry County.
Who gets their road paved, and who has to wait another year -- or more -- involves a state system
that prioritizes the paving of secondary roads.
(Roads are required by Law initially enacted in 1972) to be inventoried, evaluated, and prioritized on a
periodic basis. Normally, this process is repeated every four years, according to Mike Pettyjohn,
division maintenance engineer, for Division 11, which includes Surry County."
These are his words. Division 11 doesn't follow State laws or rules!
I would also like to include an e-mail written by Mr. Tetzlaff on February 17th 2015.
This message follows our conversation earlier today regarding subject route scheduled for
improvements/paving.
SR 1305 was listed as paving priority number 14 within the 2009 paving list for Wilkes County (paving
lists are updated every 4-years following a field inventory)
(As initially thought, the actual data sheets associated with the 2009 update were disposed of as a
result of the physical relocation of this office last year.)
For your general information, a number of items have been attached to this message as follows;
- A copy of the blank Field data sheet completed for each route during the field inventory of unpaved
roads..
- First page of the 2009 Paving priority list for Wilkes County. SR 1305 is listed as # 14 ; paving was
programmed thru priority # 31 from this listing.
- First page of the 2005 Paving priority listing for Wilkes County. SR 1305 is listed as # 29 on this
earlier listing & indicates a traffic count of 100. It is thought very likely that this count was utilized
within the later 2009 listing since we utilize the highest count on file for any route.
Sincerely,
Doug Tetzlaff (North Wilkesboro NCDOT District field office)
2. GUARD RAILS ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED along certain sections of the road. However, Mr.
Hamby said in an e-mail dated March 19th 2015 that a Guardrail is not part of the current project.
The trees formerly standing alongside the road were historically instrumental in helping some
reckless drivers when their car left the shoulder of the road -- not any more. All natural barriers are
now gone, and it is likely much more serious wrecks will occur due to blind sharp curves, speeding
drivers, and the fact that Lewis Fork Creek is directly adjacent to a significant portion of the road.
Furthermore, according to Mr. Slaughter the reason for all the destruction of this natural habit was

that the DOT had to remove curves for safety and liability issues. There have been NO curves
removed. The only thing that Division 11 did was to make these curves worse than they were to start
with. See pictures attached. There are several blind sharp curves now.
Also, on our land we have 48 foot of fill or I should say rock and boulders and tree stumps that
Division 11 placed into our pastures. Now it is straight drop off the road. See pictures.
It would be a grave mistake not to install guard rails in my opinion. Being as Division 11 decided to
make this rural soil road into a highway, I would think that is what you would do for "Safety" and to
prevent the DOT from being culpable.
3. DRAINAGE ISSUES STILL PREVAIL; and although there were assurances from Mr. Hamby and
Mr. Slaughter that the ditches would "eventually fill in and drain", evidence points to the contrary. The
rock bed on this road in certain areas is holding water like small lakes or ponds, and some areas
have held water at the same level (no reduction in level other than minor evaporation). In addition,
due to the DOT's removal of all natural erosion barriers, a landslide occurred during the recent rain
period. DOT Division 11's response to these concerns is that they will be reviewed next Spring. Why
not now? If not, hopefully no one will be killed by hitting ice across the roadway due to improper
drainage. We call them "drainage ditches" for a reason — they're supposed to collect and drain water,
not keep it impounded to make a`mosquito motel'
The haphazard, shoddy reparations that have occurred so far continue to display the lack of integrity
throughout the DOT Division 11 establishment. For example, a portion of the last culvert pipe that
was installed at the end of the road (Station 90) by Division 11 had been sheered off by a trackhoe
during installation. Instead of fixing the ripped culvert pipe they decided to cover it up with dirt. This
shoddy work was discovered by the paving company when they noticed it had caved in. Division 11
came back on Friday October 9th to repair it. Aaron Myers decided that the repair would be to wrap
the hole with a piece of inetal rather than to replace it. Another example is when they Division 11 was
caught stealing water from Millers Creek Water Association.
What else will we find that has been covered up by Division 11 as time goes on?
I would like to also point out that evidently the 30 day rule does not apply to Division 11 either. All
sections are under the 30 day design and MUST be permanently stabilized within 30 days of the time
clearing and grubbing begins. This road is no where near stabilized. This is evident from the mud
slide that occurred.
4. SPEAKING OF INTEGRITY, we would like to know who is going to compensate us for the DOT
using our pastures as a waste pit? Was a permit ever issued to use our property as a waste pit area?
Our pastures should not have been used as your dumping area!
The road is only supposed to be 32 feet wide from shoulder to ditch according to Mr. Slaughter (see
attached e-mail). Ironically the roadway bordering our pastures from shoulder to ditch is anywhere
from 36 to 50 feet. The shoulders in our pastures are 9 to 17 feet.
We should be compensated by the DOT for the excess land taken to create exceptionally wide
shoulders without permission of the property owners.
As you can see, there are still serious issues to be addressed before the NCDOT Division 11 turns

their back on the Hackett Town Road "folly". Please address these issues with the necessary
personnel and provide your response to each item noted above right away. We look forward to both
your response and the resolution of these issues quickly.
Thank You.
Bobby Triplett
and
Stacey Triplett
I rr�7all �:urrc,�l�ui�dci��;e, �C�u ai�d ��rurr�7 �U•ii� �e,i�dcr i� �ul�j��;� �u �C�h•ie, I"J � I�'�"ul�li�; I ta�:ur�:;� I..aw ai�d ir�7ay I�c rli��;lu�e,rl �u �C�h•ih�rl I�artie,�,
5

Ms. Triplett,
1. SPEED LIMIT SIGNS SHOULD BE REQUIRED
The statutory speed limit across the state is 55 mph unless otherwise posted. The traffic services unit
plans to place some additional signage in the near future with any advisory speed limits that might be
warranted.
2. GUARD RAILS ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED
Division 11 plans to install some guardrail in the next few weeks.
3. DRAINAGE ISSUES STILL PREVAIL
Our maintenance forces have inspected the ditches after the recent rains and there does not seem to be
any danger of water getting into the travel-way. They have also worked on some of the ditches and plan
to do more in the Spring when they can reestablish vegetation.
The damaged pipe that you mentioned was actually damaged by the paving contractor as they were
setting up the road in preparation for paving when their grader dug too deep into the subgrade and
damaged the top of the pipe. The repairs that were made to the top of pipe were adequate and less
invasive than removing and replacing this section of pipe.
4. SPEAKING OF INTEGRITY
The right of way agreement that your father in law signed describes the right of way that he agreed to
donate in the following statement:
"50 feet in width measured 25 feet on each side of the center line of the road, said center line to
be located by the Department and the construction or improvement of said road shall constitute
the selection of said center line; and such additional widths as might be necessary to provide for
cut and fill slopes, sedimentation control, and drainage of the road."
Sincerely
Mike Holder