Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Road Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Henderson County adopts no‑through‑truck ordinance for County Road 1429 after residents’ complaints
Summary
The Commissioners Court set a no‑through‑truck ordinance for County Road 1429 in Precinct 1 after residents said heavy trucks are damaging the road; the measure passed unanimously.
Henderson County Commissioners Court set a no‑through‑truck ordinance for County Road 1429 in Precinct 1 after three area residents described repeated damage to the roadway.
Residents told the court that large trucks, including concrete and heavy construction vehicles accessing a subdivision, have been cutting fences and traveling across ditches and private property rather than using permitted entrances, accelerating wear on County Road 1429. The court moved from a public hearing into formal action and approved the ordinance unanimously.
At a public hearing, Barbara Davis of 12710 Hidden Acres Road said, "They are destroying our road again." Kim Hill, 12640 Hidden Acres Road, said she was "also for this ordinance, same reasons, mainly destruction of the road." Paul Gutierrez of 12986 Lake Lane asked the court to act, saying, "There’s concrete trucks coming through there and pretty heavy equipment. So please, let's see if we can do something about this because they are tearing up the road."
Commissioners discussed that the construction serving the subdivision has other permitted entrances and that some trucks are using a back entrance that is not built for heavy loads. One commissioner noted the county previously repaired the road after initial subdivision construction and that recurring truck traffic is re‑damaging that repair. County staff confirmed the subdivision has another entrance off the state highway and that the back entrance is not intended to be a construction entrance.
Commissioner Spivey moved to set the no‑through‑truck ordinance on County Road 1429 in Precinct 1; Commissioner Tooley seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The court set a public hearing earlier in the meeting and then closed that hearing before taking the ordinance vote. The ordinance was described in court as a local regulation; no ordinance number beyond the motion text ("Onus 30 6") was provided in the public record presented at the meeting. The court did not attach a specific enforcement schedule or start date during the recorded discussion.
The county attorney was present in the meeting and was invited to answer legal questions during the public discussion but no additional statutory references or enforcement details were read into the record during the vote.
