Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve minor revisions to Grayson County thoroughfare plan to shift proposed route north of Gunter
Summary
The court approved Order 2025‑012 to revise the county thoroughfare plan—realigning a minor arterial near Hudgins Road/Bledsoe Road/East College Street and adjusting a north–south alignment to avoid a reservoir—citing letters of support from Van Alstyne and Gunter officials and the use of existing roads to limit condemnation.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A county commissioner presented a proposed minor revision to the Grayson County thoroughfare plan (Order 2025‑012) on Dec. 9 and the court approved the change by motion and vote.
The presenter said the revision shifts a previously proposed straight alignment northward to reduce the need for condemnation through an existing residential area in Gunter and instead use existing roads—Austin Road, Tolbert and Kerfoot—that can accommodate future expansion. The change also reroutes a north–south segment to avoid a state‑required reservoir area.
The presenter told the court he had discussed the adjustment with leadership in Van Alstyne and had a letter from Mayor Atchison expressing support for the northwest portion of the change as shown in the commission packet. The Gunter mayor and city officials also provided a blessing to move the alignment north, the presenter said.
He estimated that using existing roadways reduces the amount of new right‑of‑way that would otherwise require land acquisition and said the straight‑through route would have required more condemnation near College Street in Gunter. "There's about 3½ miles of land there that is not developed," the presenter said, and routing the alignment onto existing roads would cut off roughly a mile of new roadway that would otherwise require acquisition and construction.
The court voted to approve Order 2025‑012. Commissioners heard the presentation, asked no substantive follow‑up questions on record, and carried the motion.
