Tanglewood residents ask Spencer County fiscal court to adopt and maintain one-mile road

Tanglewood Drive residents told the Spencer County Fiscal Court on March 1 that the county intended to adopt and maintain the roughly one-mile road after a developer bond was posted and later cashed, and they asked the court to assume upkeep, snow removal and safety improvements.

Cheryl Clattz, speaking for residents, presented copies of county planning-and-zoning minutes and a 1984 road bond she said was approved for $50,000 and later cashed by the county. Clattz said the bond language and later county actions — including an inspection note from January 7, 1986, stating the entrance road to Settler’s Trace Resort had been surfaced with a two-inch compacted asphalt binder and inspected by planning and zoning — show the county intended to accept the road once the developer met the bond conditions. “The bond was collected, the county had paving completed and the records show intent to take responsibility,” Clattz said.

Kim Foster and other residents described the road’s current use, saying it serves a restaurant, a motel, about 60 apartment units and nine single-family homes, and that school buses and garbage trucks traverse the road. Dan Maholik, who introduced himself as a long-time resident, said the community has deep ties to the area and is seeking only what they consider equitable treatment compared with other subdivisions whose streets the county adopted.

Residents cited county precedents in their presentation: records they summarized show Camp Bratton roads ultimately adopted (adoption cited from 2014 minutes), Pilot’s Way needing later repairs after adoption, Elk Chase adopted July 1, 2019 with a court statement that the county would “complete the roads to current specifications,” and Walnut Grove streets adopted September 4, 2019 despite incomplete work at adoption. Clattz said those examples show the county has, at times, accepted roads before they met modern standards and then brought them up to current specifications.

Court members asked for copies of the documents Clattz brought and said staff would research deeds, prior minutes and whether portions of the road fall inside recent city annexations. A magistrate noted a city annexation appears to include the restaurant and motel but not necessarily the full length of Tanglewood Drive; court members said they would consult city records and county counsel about the proper legal steps to adopt or assume maintenance. Julie (planning/zoning staff) and other officials agreed to accept scanned copies of the documents for the record and to help the court research adoption history.

Judge Travis and other members stressed they would not decide the issue that night but would investigate the paperwork, deeds and prior actions, and would seek legal advice on whether the county is contractually obligated to maintain the road or whether the court must bring the road up to current specifications before adoption. One magistrate said the court might at a minimum maintain the pre-existing width and provide winter plowing while legal and title issues are resolved.

Residents requested plowing, summer maintenance and safety improvements and asked the court to treat Tanglewood Drive equitably compared with other subdivisions the county adopted in similar circumstances. Court staff and members asked residents to scan and email the materials presented so the court could review them and consult the county attorney and the city.

The court did not take a formal vote on adoption that night; members said follow-up work and legal review would take multiple weeks and encouraged residents to continue to engage with the court.