Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court releases Lone Star construction bond, begins maintenance bond and approves Countryside replat amid one dissent
Summary
The county released a construction performance bond for Lone Star State Subdivision, approved beginning a 24-month maintenance bond pending delivery of new bond paperwork, tabled two road-acceptance items until the bond is supplied, approved special road-use agreements for pipeline and solar projects, and approved a replat of Countryside Acres 4–1.
Henderson County Commissioners Court took several land- and construction-related actions during its meeting.
Bond actions and maintenance: The court approved release of construction performance improvement bond #72703842 for Lone Star State Subdivision in Precinct 3 after staff confirmed the work was complete and met county standards. Commissioners then approved beginning the required 24-month maintenance bond, subject to the developer delivering the newly issued maintenance bond number to the county clerk before road acceptance and final maintenance transition.
Road acceptances tabled: Because the maintenance bond paperwork has not yet been delivered, the court unanimously tabled two requests by Lone Star Estates to accept Old Fiddler Lane (0.07 miles) and Black Eyed Pea Drive (0.15 miles) into the county’s two-year maintenance program until the bond is filed.
Special road-use agreements: The court approved a special road-use indemnity agreement with CAPCO Contractors and BKS Consulting LLC to allow Atmos pipeline replacement work across multiple county roads in Precinct 3, and separately approved a special road-use indemnity agreement for McCarthy Building Companies to support staging for the Solex solar project near Moore Station. Both agreements passed unanimously.
Countryside Acres replat: The court considered a replat of Countryside Acres (replatting Tracts 1 and 2 to create Tracts 8–12). Joyce (S14) raised concerns that original lot lines and utility easements were not shown on the filing copy; the developer’s representative (S15) explained the change affects Lot 9 and that lot owners were in agreement. The court approved the replat for filing purposes only on a 4–1 vote.
Motions on the subdivision bonds, road-use agreements and the replat carried on recorded voice votes as noted in the court minutes.
