History

March 11, 1985

Commissioners Court Meeting 

Subdivision regulations approved which were in place when Rustic Oaks was accepted.

April 28, 1986

Commissioners Court Meeting 

"The Court next considered approval of the final plat of Rustic Oaks Subdivision in Precinct 3. The County Engineer recommended approval of the plat, but noted the following conditions.

1. Low plasticity of base material and ditches and low CBR values.

2. Pavement will be subject to localized failures (pot holes) and washboarding.

3. Ditches will be subject to erosion. The County Engineer recommended:

a. The County reserve the right to maintain the roads as gravel;

b. Establish vegetation on the ditches as soon as possible;

c. That the developer provide a maintenance bond of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00); and

d. That the two year maintenance period of the roads commence today.

On motion by Commissioner Beard, seconded by Commissioner Wilcox, the Court accepted the Engineer’s recommendations and voted unanimously to approve the plat.”

May 31, 1988

Commissioners Court Meeting 

"Having met all the Subdivision Regulations and on motion by Commissioner Beard, seconded by Commissioner Wilcox, the Court voted unanimously to accept for maintenance the roads in the Rustic Oaks Subdivision."

August 1988

Survey of private portion of Greenleaf Lane completed by Kling Engineering. Survey is referenced in warranty deed for first property sold on Greenleaf (Document 439379)

Jim & Anne Jones - 6/18/1992 - Present

• Remember the maintenance sign originally being on the subdivision line and then later it was moved to the other side of the culvert crossing

• Understanding given when purchasing land was that the County would not pave the Public section but would maintain it as gravel

• Witnessed County maintenance of all of the Public section of Greenleaf including the culvert crossing

Darlene Hamiter - 9/11/2000 - Present

• Witnessed County maintenance of all of the Public section of Greenleaf including the culvert crossing

Ronald & Joanne Rusch - 5/20/1992 - Present

• Remember the maintenance sign originally being on the subdivision line and then later it was moved to the other side of the culvert crossing

• Witnessed County maintenance of all of the Public section of Greenleaf including the culvert crossing

Patricia Nason - 11/15/1991 - 8/1/1994

• Doesn't remember where the maintenance sign was located

• Witnessed County maintenance of all of the Public section of Greenleaf including the culvert crossing

6/16/2015

Work order for Greenleaf Ln shows three entries with the following information:

• 8 Yards of standard base used with a cost of $169.68

• 7 hours of labor at a cost of $188.61

• Use of equipment RB690 and RB933 with an equipment cost of $366.42

November 5, 2018 - Meeting

Brian Cahill met with County Engineer Prarthana Banerji, Commissioner Catalena and others from Road and bridge. Discussed flooding issues at the Greenleaf culvert crossing and the fact that arial views seemed to put the section on County land. Prarthana committed to doing a survey to locate the edge of the subdivision.

November 5, 2018 - Maintenance

Work order for Greenleaf ln. with the following information:

• 84 yards of standard base used with a cost of $2,005.68

• 35.5 hours of labor at a cost of $972.57

• Use of equipment RB688, RB684, RB699, RB529, RB503 with an equipment cost of $1,119.96

November 16, 2018 - Survey and Sign Move

The County hired Strong Surveying to locate the edge of the subdivision to resolve questions on how much of Greenleaf was County Road. Based on the survey findings, the County maintenance sign was moved back to its original location at the edge of the subdivision (1069 feet). The County Engineer informed the residents via email that the County was responsible for Greenleaf up to this point and would again take responsibility for the culvert crossing.

December 11, 2018 - Sign Move

The County moved the maintenance sign to the edge of the paved section (669 feet). Residents were instructed to take their concerns to the County legal department. When the legal department was contacted and asked what documentation had been consulted to move the sign to a new location, they were told that no documentation had been looked at. The legal department said that if the residents could provide documentation that the sign should be in a different location they would revisit their decision.