Judge grants preliminary injunction in
RTC suit
January 10, 2007
By Dave Kucifer
Examiner publisher After listening
to over two hours of testimony Thursday morning, District Judge
Kenneth Keeling found in favor of the plaintiff and issued a
preliminary injunction in Ed Hewitt suit challenging the location of
the proposed Gardener's Kids Residential Treatment Center on County
Road 2445. The Hewitt property shares the boundary on the north side
of the Gardener property. In filing the suit, Hewitt contends the
presence of the RTC would reduce his property value and would call
into question the security of the area.
Judge Keeling set a $3,000 bond and
scheduled a jury trial on the issue for September.
The suit was filed on the basis
that the proposed site of the RTC was restricted to single family
residences. Mrs. Gardener testified she was unaware of any deed
restrictions before being handed notice of the proposed suit
following the second public hearing on the license application,
December 14.
The Gardeners' are in the process
of applying for a state license to operate a residential treatment
center for up to 22 young men ages nine to 17. Mrs. Gardener said
the initial application is based on 14 youths, some of whom have
behavior problems.
The court's action in no way
interferes with the Gardener's right to continue the license
application process; it merely says there is sufficient evidence
that the proposed site is in a restricted subdivision and a
permanent solution is needed.
While the only issue was the usage
of the property, the testimony delved into other areas, with the
Gardener's attorney questioning Hewitt about his property and
suggesting that he didn't know if he lived in the Bluebonnet
subdivision. Hewitt said he had never received a bill from any home
owner association, never been notified of any restriction violations
and other than once being told to clean up his property had no
additional contact with any other individual or group.
In presenting his case Mrs.
Gardener's attorney told the court there was no clear indication
that deed restrictions in the questioned area had ever been enforced
since the area was plated over 25 years ago.
Under examination by her lawyer
Mrs. Gardener testified that when she and her husband were seeking
property they had made it clear to their real estate agent they were
seeking unrestricted property. When called to the stand, the
Gardener's agent said she was unaware of any restrictions.
There was no immediate response
from the Gardeners or their attorney of what they intended to do.
|
