Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lufkin council approves hotel special-use permit despite adjacent owner’s easement protest
Summary
The Lufkin City Council approved on first reading a special-use permit for a 90-room, four-story extended-stay hotel in the Garden District, despite an adjacent property owner’s claim the developer has no legal right to use part of her land for access; city staff said a recorded access easement is on file.
The Lufkin City Council on first reading approved an ordinance granting a special-use permit for a four-story, 90-room extended-stay hotel on roughly 2.8 acres in the Garden District Shopping Village Subdivision after a public hearing and discussion about access and recorded easements.
The issue became contested during public comment when Amy Padilla, owner of Lot 4A and A and A Lock and Holdings LLC, told the council she believed the developer intended to use about 40 feet of her private property for a driveway and fire access without her consent. "They don't really own my land. They do not have an easement, and they do not have a legal right to use it," Padilla said, urging the council to deny any site plan that relied on Lot 4A and to require the developer to redesign access using only land it owns.
City staff had recommended the council conduct the public hearing and consider approval. Kevin (staff) told the council the proposed site includes a screening wall along the southern boundary where it interfaces with residential uses, and that planning staff mailed 12 notices and received one letter of opposition. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval at its Feb. 9 hearing, staff said.
Elena Hilton, city planner, told council the applicant provided a copy of a recorded access easement filed in 2023 that "shows access from North Medford Drive all the way to the boundaries of that lot" and noted that the easement filing is recorded at the county clerk's office. Hilton said the access arrangement reflected mutual cross-access easements for the shopping center lots and described the current disagreement as a dispute between private property owners; "the city is not party to that easement," she said.
After discussion and a motion to approve on first reading, the ordinance passed; the council recorded at least one 'nay' vote but the motion carried. Council then recessed into an executive session under Texas Government Code section 551.087 to deliberate regarding economic development negotiations, and upon return reported no action taken.
The ordinance approved on first reading will return to the council per the city's ordinance-adoption process for any required subsequent readings.
