Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Uvalde County tables request to shorten maintenance on County Road 109 after neighbors, attorneys disagree
Summary
After extended testimony from property owners, county staff and private counsel, the Uvalde County Commissioners Court voted to table a request to stop maintaining part of County Road 109 and seek outside legal review; supporters said the county has maintained beyond its deeded easement, neighbors said public use supports continued maintenance.
Uvalde County Commissioners on a motion voted to table consideration of a request from landowners to shorten the county's maintenance of County Road 109 and to seek outside counsel to review title and adverse-possession issues.
Private counsel for applicants Nolan and Mrs. Sheedy, Joe Davis, told the court the 1980 deed granted the county a 2,290-foot easement (about 0.433 miles) and that county maintenance since then extends to about 0.7 miles. "We're just asking that you cut back and maintain only the 0.433 distance that is the full length of the county," Davis said, asking the court to correct the county road index and cease maintenance beyond the deeded terminus.
Nearby residents and users challenged that position. Annabelle Badusko, speaking for herself and her husband, said they were "okay" if a gate were placed at the west end of their property but emphasized the court should not cut access to their parcels. Another resident who identified himself as a long-time road user said the road has been "continuously used" for years and presented a petition of neighbors who oppose shortening the county-maintained portion.
County staff and counsel discussed statutory mechanics. One county attorney noted the county road map adopted after a jury review is evidence of the county's authority to spend public money on a road but does not, by itself, confer ownership of the underlying land. Private counsel and others debated whether long-term maintenance and map inclusion could support an adverse-possession claim, with both sides saying that such a claim would require litigation and a final judgment.
After public testimony and legal discussion, the court voted to table the item, direct staff to obtain outside counsel, and schedule further consideration after an on-site review. The court recorded the motion as carried in open session.
Next steps: the court said it will obtain outside legal review on the questions of title and adverse possession and return the item to a future agenda following that review and an on-site inspection.
