Manvel council rejects special-use permit for proposed freestanding emergency room after hour of public testimony

The Manvel City Council voted unanimously to deny a special-use permit for a proposed freestanding emergency room at a Highway 6 site adjacent to the Bluewater subdivision, concluding a multi-month review and public-comment period.

Supporters of the project, including the applicant and clinicians who would staff the facility, said the ER would provide local, round-the-clock access and create jobs. Opponents — including several neighborhood residents and local emergency medical personnel — said the site and model raise traffic, noise and ambulance-response concerns and questioned whether a freestanding ER is the right land use for the parcel.

The proposal would have allowed a roughly 7,000-square-foot freestanding emergency room next to an AutoZone and Starbucks site along Highway 6, abutting the Bluewater neighborhood. The project team said it would mirror the owner’s existing South Shore ER in League City and employ dozens of people. “We are generator operated so even if there is a hurricane … we will be there,” applicant Dr. Thomas said during the council presentation.

Neighbors and first responders urged the council to consider the local impact. Resident Jessica Wells, whose neighborhood submitted 12 letters and comments opposing the proposal, said many neighbors do not want the commercial-style facility adjacent to their homes. “We are opposed to this,” Wells told the council, saying she would prefer a community-oriented use rather than a freestanding ER.

Local EMS personnel told the council that patient-transfer operations could strain Manvel Emergency Medical Services. Paramedic Samantha Mines said using the 911 agency for interfacility transfers would remove units from 9‑1‑1 coverage and lengthen response times. “Those minutes matter,” she said, describing the risk of stretching limited EMS resources.

Project supporters pushed back on concerns about ambulance noise and patient volume. Architect Chuck Webb said the facility would treat just a modest number of patients — “6 to 24 patients per day” — and predicted minimal ambulance traffic, arguing that retail uses on the same site could produce heavier daily traffic and light pollution.

Applicant representatives also raised procedural and fairness arguments. Jason Soucekhi, speaking for the development team, said the project meets the city’s special‑use permit criteria and described outreach to nearby residents; he urged council to approve the permit so the city could avoid a future “worse” commercial use (for example, a drive‑through restaurant) that would not require an SUP.

City staff emphasized that the council’s decision should be a land‑use determination, not a vote on the applicant’s business model or viability. Staff also noted zoning and state‑law complications: Planning staff reported that Texas law can require continuous (24‑hour) operation for some medical uses, and the city is reviewing whether the municipal ordinance should be amended to address medical‑use operating‑hour rules consistently.

After questions from council members about alternative sites, the project’s financial sustainability and the potential for future “micro‑hospital” development, Mayor Dan Davis moved to approve the ordinance (first reading) authorizing the SUP with staff conditions. Councilman O’Plager seconded. When council called for a vote, the motion failed by a 0–7 vote; no affirmative votes were recorded.

The council’s decision ends this application at this location. Staff and the applicant discussed possible next steps, such as pursuing zoning‑ordinance changes that would affect operating‑hour rules for medical uses, or the applicant pursuing other sites. The council and several members encouraged the applicant to consider alternate locations in Manvel where utilities, setbacks and neighborhood context might better match the intended use.

Votes on the item were framed strictly as a land‑use decision, the mayor said; council members repeatedly asked staff and the applicant to confine testimony to site‑specific land‑use impacts rather than business success claims. Several council members acknowledged the community’s need for medical access but said this site did not meet their land‑use expectations.

What’s next: The special‑use permit application was denied tonight. If the applicant wishes to pursue a freestanding ER again, it would need a different site or a substantially revised application; any ordinance changes staff recommended would be brought to council separately for a public hearing and vote.