Arch Resorts

Arch Resorts Lawsuit

"A state district judge requested that McKinney seek an interpretation of its 2002 Interlocal Agreement (City-County Plat approval Agreement 3-19-02) with Collin County regarding platting and permitting procedures within the city’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Consequently, Collin County was added as a party to an existing lawsuit filed by an RV Park development, Arch Resorts, against the city in 2015. The contract interpretation is important to all affected parties as the city and county work collectively to ensure quality growth, adequate public infrastructure and safe structures in the ETJ, and particularly in McKinney’s future regional and entertainment district. While the proposed RV Park is now within the McKinney city limits, the initial development permits were issued by Collin County, rather than the city, during a period prior to its annexation. The court’s decision will provide clarity to the city, county and landowners who seek to develop in McKinney’s ETJ in the future."


  1. What did the Court rule in the case City of McKinney vs. Arch Resorts?
    Judge Scott Becker ruled on several motions for summary judgment on July 7, 2017. In his rulings, the Court granted motions for Arch Resorts and Collin County. Judge Becker denied the city’s motion for summary judgment. There are fact issues remaining to be determined at trial, set for November 27, 2017.
  2. How does this ruling differ from the outcome of the Custer Storage vs. City of McKinney case?
    The rulings are not consistent with the Custer Storage judgment. Unlike Custer Storage, Judge Becker did not find that the City-County 1445 agreement gave authority to the City of McKinney to regulate plats and building permits in the ETJ. Unlike Custer Storage, Judge Becker did not find that the city has authority to require landowners to obtain permits in the ETJ. 
  3. What does this mean for the City of McKinney?
    In response to Collin County’s appeal of the Custer Storage decision, the city also appealed the Custer Storage case seeking confirmation and clarification of its authority regarding platting, enforcement of codes and permitting issues in the ETJ - all of which are present in both cases. The city will continue to operate under the 2002 City-County Agreement that grants the city authority over subdivisions and building codes in the ETJ. The city will continue to work with Collin County on an efficient development process for all property owners in McKinney’s ETJ.
  4. What ordinances / policies have changed in light of this ruling?
    No ordinances or policies have changed due to the ruling or by court order. However, to resolve ongoing questions specifically related to single family home development in the ETJ, the McKinney City Council directed staff to evaluate potential modifications to the city’s subdivision ordinance that would relieve platting requirements for the construction of single family residences on lots that have not been subdivided. In August and September of 2017, the City Council adopted modifications to the city’s Subdivision Regulations and Building Permit requirements addressing the platting and permitting of single family structures and related properties in the city’s ETJ. Specifically, the approved modifications eliminated the need for permitting or platting for the construction, repair, renovation or remodeling of one single family residential dwelling unit including accessory structures.
  5. How does this ruling affect the city’s ability to control future build-out in the ETJ?
    So long as the current ordinances are in effect, the ruling will only affect the development of the Arch Resorts property. McKinney, and all of Collin County, is experiencing tremendous growth, and rapid growth will continue for the foreseeable future. In order to accommodate such growth while maintaining the quality and charm that make McKinney such a great place to live, the city has to plan for the future. Annexation is just one of the tools, along with comprehensive planning, economic development and capital improvement programs that help a city maintain quality, plan for its future infrastructure needs, and provide city services to its citizens.
  6. What financial implications does this have for the city?
    McKinney’s budget already includes the staff expense of reviewing, permitting and inspection of those properties which are covered by the subdivision ordinance.
  7.  Will the city appeal the judge’s ruling?
    The Arch Resorts case cannot be appealed until a final judgment is issued - after trial.  Consequently, a decision whether to appeal is not ripe at this time.
  8. What is the current status of the case?
    The city has entered into settlement agreements with both the landowners and Collin County. The settlement with the landowners will not become final, however, until their property is rezoned to uses that do not include an RV park. That rezoning is expected to be completed by December 5th. The settlement with Collin County only involves the reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs. That settlement is also expected to be approved by December 5th. 
  9. How does the outcome of this case, either by trial or by settlement, affect Custer Storage vs. City of McKinney? 
    The rulings in Arch Resorts do not affect the judgment or appeal in the Custer Storage case. The settlement of the Arch Resorts case will also have no impact on the appeal of the Custer Storage case.