Lufkin council approves special-use permit for 90-room extended-stay hotel after owner objects over easement

The Lufkin City Council voted to approve a special-use permit on second reading for a proposed four-story, 90-room extended-stay hotel in the Garden District Shopping Center during its March 3 meeting.

City staff said the undeveloped, roughly 2.8-acre site sits south of Buffalo Wild Wings and adjacent to other commercial uses and a residentially zoned area. Staff presented proposed site plans and elevations and told the council that planning and zoning had unanimously recommended approval. Staff also said 12 notices were mailed to property owners within the 200-foot notification area and that the city received one letter in opposition.

During the public hearing, Tom Broomstetter (S2) raised concerns about a retention pond and nonworking streetlights in the Garden District and asked what assurances exist that the pond will be properly maintained. Amy (S9), the owner of Lot 4A, challenged the city's process and transparency for relying on 'Exhibit B' — the recorded metes-and-bounds description — saying city representatives had previously described the easement alternately as for retention-pond access and for fire access without having the legal exhibit available. Amy told the council, "That, to me, is not transparency...That to me is not due diligence, and that is not how decisions affecting private property should be made." She urged the city to show precisely where Exhibit B authorizes any additional use beyond the recorded description.

Staff noted that the special-use permit and site plans were included in the council packet and recommended the council conduct the public hearing and consider approval. After brief council discussion and public comments, a motion to approve the ordinance on second reading was made and seconded; the council voted by voice, and the motion carried.

The council's approval allows the applicant to proceed with the special-use permit process; the record shows one formal objection from an adjacent property owner about the easement's scope and the city's presentation of Exhibit B. The council did not resolve the legal specifics of the easement at the meeting; Amy asked for a clear, highlighted presentation of Exhibit B showing the precise metes-and-bounds authorizing any use, which was not provided on the record.