Brown County discussion opens on closing part of County Road 310 amid dumping, safety and access concerns

At a Brown County Commissioners Court meeting, a local landowner described repeated dumping, damaged drainage and safety issues on County Road 310 and urged commissioners to pursue abandoning a segment of the road if an absentee landowner does not respond to notification.

The resident said the road’s eastern portion, roughly 2,500 feet in one stretch, has been repeatedly blocked by trash, is failing to drain properly and has become a public-safety concern. “I put 7 gates up,” the resident said, describing efforts to stop dumping and to protect properties along the route. The speaker and a neighboring landowner, identified in the discussion as the McCoy family, said they are willing to provide a perpetual easement to preserve access for the McCoys if the county abandons the eastern segment.

Commission staff and commissioners described a process the county will follow: send a final certified letter to the absentee property owner, document attempts to notify that owner, and then proceed with the abandonment process if the owner does not respond. A county official summarized the next steps as “start over and send him a certified letter and contact him one last time and document that we did it and then we're done with it.”

Speakers described operational impacts for first responders and county services. Commissioners and staff noted confusion for dispatch and the sheriff’s office when responding to calls in the area because the road has two separated segments and some emergency crews are routed to the wrong side of County Road 310. Staff said the county must be specific with dispatch about whether callers mean County Road 310 East (the segment under discussion) or the section accessed from County Road 292.

Landowners said the road has gone unmaintained for years, that drainage structures have been washed out, and that repeated maintenance requests to county crews and the sheriff’s office yielded intermittent results. The resident said the sheriff’s office and county jail crews performed cleanups in the past but have since declined further service on the site, prompting private measures and the installation of additional gates.

County staff confirmed the road is a county road and noted a long history of intermittent attempts to contact the absentee owner, including past postings and petitions. Staff recommended one more certified mailing to the owner, then proceeding with abandonment of the east-side portion of County Road 310 if there is no response. Commissioners and the exchange indicated they would also examine maintaining or resurfacing the portion of road before formal abandonment steps are completed.

Speakers also raised property-access details: staff and residents said the absentee landowner has frontage on County Road 292 and is not landlocked, and that utilities serving the absentee property are routed from 292 rather than County Road 310. The resident asserted the absentee owner had been behind on property taxes but recently paid arrears and that the county had contact information it had unsuccessfully used.

The discussion closed with agreement on two practical steps: (1) county staff will send a certified notice to the absentee owner and document all contact attempts, and (2) if there is no response, staff will return to the commissioners with the formal abandonment process for the east-side portion of County Road 310 while preserving or documenting access options for the McCoy family via easement.

The exchange included repeated references to long-standing local frustration: speakers said the matter has been under discussion for years and that any final action must preserve emergency and private access and resolve drainage and maintenance obligations going forward.