Laserfiche WebLink
s' <br />~• <br />~~~ <br />~) <br />f ~, <br />~~ <br />);~1 ~ <br />~J <br />BRUCE A. COPLEN <br />LEGER & COPLEN <br />A~PROiC8910NAL CORPORATION <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />5847 SAN FELIPE, SUITE 1250 <br />HOUSTON, TEXAS 77057 <br />May 22, 1989 <br />Mr. Knox W. Askins <br />City Attorney <br />City of LaPorte <br />702 West Fairmont Parkway <br />LaPorte, Texas 77571 <br />ne : Fotertial Annexai.ons <br />Dear Mr. Askins: <br /> <br />AREA CODE 713 <br />TELEPNONE 781-5932 <br />TELECOPY 781-4186 <br />This firm represents Southern Ionics, Inc. ("SI"). As you <br />know, SI is currently associated with an incinerator permit <br />pending before. the Texas Water Commission. SI is the current <br />owner of the proposed incineration site, which is located in the <br />City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. <br />We understand that your client, the City Council of the City <br />of LaPorte, has adopted two ordinances regarding potential <br />annexation of the incinerator site. We understand that Ordinance <br />No. 1641, adopted May 1, 1989, directs the City's Department of <br />Community Development to prepare a service plan for the area <br />proposed to be annexed. We also understand that the City Council <br />that same day adopted Ordinance No. 1642, which declares the <br />City's intention to annex the site and calls for two public <br />hearings on such annexation and publication of notice of such <br />hearing. We also understand that the City Council has adopted <br />Ordinance No. 1634, which purports to establish hazardous waste <br />incinerator siting requirements within the City limits. <br />The purpose cf t'~e ? T~tt~r :.c tc aciviss you :i3a~ tic iw. a <br />annexation ordinances and any eventual annexation are precluded by <br />and in violation of the industrial district agreement between SI <br />and the City. As you are aware, SI entered into an industrial <br />district agreement effective January 1, 1987 (the "Agreement") <br />with the City. Section I of the Agreement provides that the City <br />covenants that the property shall be immune from annexation until <br />1993. The City further covenants in the Agreement not to <br />"exercise in any manner whatever control over the conduct of <br />business thereon...". Based on the facts available to us at this <br />time, it appears that any annexation of the SI tract would be in <br />breach of these covenants and would entitle SI to take action to <br />protect their legal rights. Further, if an annexation were <br />purported to be completed, SI has been advised that any <br />enforcement of the Ordinance 210. 1634 with respect to SI's plans <br />