1989-05-22 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting

Browse Search

I'IH'Y'-~~-1'~c~'~ 11 ~ ~~:t rK.Uf`I LtlatF? ~ ~Hf dUtK;:~ I LI F;t<'..~ 1 L ~L~IVL'L~CLr . r "~ .A• • • f I.ECiER & ~OPt,EN A vR0~49ZfrONAL tpR-OMTIOr. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5&t7 SAN FELIPE, SUJTE 1250 HousrON, TExAS 77057 BR4C6 A. COPLEN AREA CODE 713 TELC~MONE 7B1-S 982 May 22, 989 TELECOPY 781.41Sd Mr . Knox W . ~lskins City Attorney City o£ LaPorte _ 702 West Fairmont Parkway LaPorte, Texas 77571 ate: Potential Annaxai_ionr Dear Mr. Askins: This firm represents Southern tonics, Tnc. ("SI"}. As you know, SI is currently associated with an incinerator permit pending before the Texas Water Commission. SI is the Current Qwner of the prr.,rosed inGxneration site, Wh~.Gll is located in the Gity's extraterritorial jurisdiction. We understand that your client, the City Counca.l of the C~.ty of LaPorte, has adopted two ordinances regarding potential annexation of the incinerator site. We understand that Ordinance No. 1641, adopted May 1, 1989, directs the City's Department of f Community Development to prepare a service plan £or the area proposed to be annexed. We also understand that the Gity Council that same day adopted Ordinance No. 1642, which declares the City's intention to annex the site and calls for two public hearings on such annexation and publication of notice of such hearing. We also understand that the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 1634, which purports to establish hazardous waste incinerator Siting requirements wzthin the 12ity limits. The purpose of the letter is to ad~~XSe you that the two annexation-ordinances and any eventual annexation are precluded by and in violation of the industrial district agreement between SI and the City. As you are aware, 5I ente~:ed into an industrial district agreement effective January 1, 1987 (the "Agreement") with the City. Sectzon I of the Agreement provides that the City covenants that the property shall be immun4: from annexation until 1993. The CiY_y further oovGnz~nts ~.n 1:hE Agreement not to "exercise in any manner whatever control aver the conduct of busy-Hess thereon.. ," . Dasecl vn the EaCts ctVai.lable to uS at this time, it appears that any annexation of the SI tract would be in breach of these covenants and would entitle SI to take action to protect their legal, rights. Further, 3.f an annexation were purported to be completed, SI has been advised that any enf•orcempnt- of the Ordinance No. 1G34 witl7 x.espect to SZ's pzans