The League City Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday affirmed staff’s denial of a minor plat for 691 Hewitt Street, known as Reyes Estates, after staff said the most recent plat application omitted a required drainage easement and other standard platting documents.

Christopher Carpenter, planning director for the City of League City, told the commission staff denied the plat because it lacked recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions, a stamped survey, standard plat notes and a dedicatory statement, and it did not show a drainage easement that staff says is needed to preserve an existing drainage corridor. “Where a drainage ditch exists on a property an easement must be dedicated that preserves the flow of that ditch,” Carpenter said while citing the city’s Unified Development Code provisions that govern easements and required drainage plans.

Why it matters: Staff said the ditch runs north–south across the property and can act as a balancing channel during large storms, with flows that ultimately connect to the Robinson Bayou watershed and, in extreme events, can backfeed into the Benson Bayou system. Carpenter said the requested easement width reflects the minimum area necessary for maintenance access and to preserve drainage capacity; staff described the requested easement as 60 feet total (30 feet on each side of the ditch centerline).

Michelle Slaughter, an attorney with Johnson and Associates representing property owners David and his spouse Reyes, disputed the city’s analysis. Slaughter said the ditch is an isolated surface feature that “rarely holds water” and that the Reyeses submitted a stamped drainage plan with the application. She argued the city’s demand for roughly “1.25 acres” of the family’s 6.55‑acre parcel is an uncompensated exaction and called it “an illegal and unconstitutional regulatory taking of private property.”

Owner David Reyes told the commission the family has spent years and money trying to obtain permits and prepare to build a single family home on the parcel. Reyes said the prior house on the property was demolished, the family cleaned the ditch and landscaped the site, and that earlier submittals contained additional documents that were not recorded. He told the commission that city staff told him a maintenance easement must be granted or a permit would not be issued.

City staff provided additional background during commissioner questions. Christopher Sims in engineering said the city’s records include drainage studies dating to the 1970s and follow-up tributary analyses, and that post‑Hurricane Harvey modeling showed this corridor can function as a balancing feature in very large storm events. Staff said they have limited authority to access the ditch without an easement and that the platting process is the point at which the city may request easements tied to development impacts.

Legal context: A city attorney explained the difference between an eminent‑domain acquisition (which generally requires compensation) and an exaction tied to an applicant’s proposed development. The attorney said an exaction is permissible where the applicant’s proposed activity creates additional demand on infrastructure and where the requirement is applied uniformly; staff said the proposed, larger replacement house would increase impervious area relative to the prior structure and that this supports the need for a drainage easement in this case.

Commission decision and next steps: After discussion the commission voted to affirm the denial of the plat application by a voice vote with five ayes and one nay. The commission’s determination was final for this agenda item and the denial stands. Carpenter and staff told the commission the applicant may pursue alternatives: submit engineering demonstrating rerouting or reduced easement width, seek a variance, or provide the missing recorded documents required with a plat application.

What was not resolved: Commissioners and the applicants discussed whether the city would maintain the ditch if granted an easement and whether the city would compensate owners for land taken; staff said the requested easement would give access and preserve the corridor but that maintenance has historically been rare and that payment for additional future easement width would be required if expansion became necessary later. The precise identity of the single nay vote was not recorded in the audio transcript; the official minute roll will record individual votes.

Provenance: Staff introduction of the item and code citations (00:00:58), applicant and owner presentations (00:08:18; 00:18:56), engineering history and staff rationale (00:40:45), motion and vote to affirm denial (01:06:00–01:07:17).