When one P & Z Member decided to tape the proceedings because “there was a possibility that the commission’s vote may have opened up the commissioner’s to personal liability that would not be covered by the TML insurance.” He failed to mention that the plat vote allegedly “takes away land in the 50-foot setback behind the residents’ houses.” So I wondered what was the the rest of the story.
Well we got the rest of the story according to today’s Galveston County News. According to the story the Developer of the project Nick “Scotto plans to extend the canal within 20 feet of the Twin Timbers houses. League City subdivision rules require canals be no closer than 50 feet from abutting properties; that rule can be waived with the consent of area landowners.”
So it may appear that the Planning and Zoning Board either was unaware of the rules (which every commissioner should know ) or those that pushed for the project allegedly violated the League City subdivision rules. Either way those that voted for the project should understand that such a vote is only good to the special interests of the developer and NOT good for the citizens or city. What they have done has forced the residence to sue the city. In my opinion, those commissioners who knowingly understood the consequences of their actions regarding this despicable vote should do the city and citizens a favor and resign. The citizens have voted for change and, in my opinion, you are obviously still part of the good old boy way of doing business and a major part of the problem.
Now the city council will have to get the city out of the liability that your poor decision made.
I can’t help but reminded of the commissioner who taped the proceeding saying to me on this blog “stop framing me in other than a positive way as a citizen who is volunteering his time for the good of the city.” I ask do you really wonder why you are looked at like you are? To some it’s all about the money and business to others it’s about what is best for our city.
10 comments:
Once again Chris Mallios is misguided and incorrect. His mouth was in motion before his mind was in gear. The vote in the prior two meetings was for final plat for Cypress Bay section 3. The property that is in the Galveston Daily News today and that Mr. Mallios speaks of is in section 1. This property was not part of the last plat approval as Mr. Mallios would like you to believe. This is yet another example of Mr. Mallios's distortion of the truth and his use of treachery to defame me. Look before you leap Chris. You’re just a piece of work.
Marc,
Let me get this straight. You are saying that the Daily news is absolutely incorrect when it stated “Twenty-two residents who live on Twin Timbers Lane are suing the city for a planning and zoning commissions’ decision to approve a plat of the Cypress Bay subdivision on FM 2094 between South Shore Resort and FM 146. The subdivision is under development by Nick Scotto.” Seems to me that is pretty plain. But maybe you will explain how I am “misguiding” this information from the newspaper.
No Chris, read the words, I am saying you are absolutely incorrect.
Chris,
In this case Marc is technically correct. The P&Z action that approved the platting of Cypress Bay in the section that effects the houses on Twin Timbers was done at a P&Z session prior to the two which Marc had recorded. The meetings which Marc recorded were in reference to Cypress Bay section 3, which does not include the issues subject to this lawsuit.
Please note that I am not addressing the propriety of P&Z's actions or the merits of this suit. Just noting that Marc is correct about the technical detail of which sections of property P&Z addressed at which meetings.
A related interesting question here is why has Neil Baron placed an incorrectly named agenda item addressing this case in executive session for council Tuesday night? Actually, that is two questions; one, why is a councilman instead of the city attorney placing an item on the agenda to discuss a lawsuit, and two, why was the nature of the suit improperly titled in the agenda item?
Jeff
Mr. Edelman and Mr. Mallios
Gentlemen,
Rather than the filming of a P & Z meeting, I think you both MIGHT agree the real issue should be about the fact another lawsuit has been filed against the city.
Marc, I was grateful to learn a citizen can record a city meeting. Given this knowledge I recorded the second P & Z meeting regarding approval of Cypress Bay Section 3. My Kodak V705 did a great job with both audio and video. Most enlightening was Attorney Barbara Roberts statement about why she was attending the meeting in place of City Attorney Dick Gregg. She said, “He has recused himself and I am here to protect the interest of the city.”
Let’s skip on to the current topic of the lawsuit filed by a number of Marina Del Sol residents against the City.
What puzzles me most is the agenda item posted by Mr. Baron in executive session?
Texas Open Meetings Act, Section 551.071 Government Code – Consultation with Attorney
Discuss Cause No. 09CV0779 Cypress Bay Subdivision (Council Member Baron)
Consider and take action regarding Cause No. 09CV0779 Cypress Bay Subdivision (Council Member Baron)
Two Questions:
Why is Mr. Baron posting an item for legal consideration as the lawsuit was only filed a few days ago?
Why the agenda item was incorrectly posted and did not fully identify the parties of the law suit? The correct citing of a lawsuit is by parties, such as Joe the Plumber and et al, vs. City of League City. As far as I know Cypress Bay Subdivision is neither a legal entity nor a party to the lawsuit.
I am not lawyer. Many citizens are taking offense of an elected official constantly advertising his business during televised city counsel meetings.
Guys, I think the real issue is another lawsuit against the city related to the Cypress Bay development.
There is now an additional issue of peripheral importance in this story. In the online comments to the GDN article about the story, Marc has posted some misstatements of fact relevant to this lawsuit. I do not understand the propriety of a city official making unsanctioned comments of fact that are material to the city's defense in a lawsuit, especially when those comments are factually incorrect and come from a person directly linked to the reason for the suit.
Here is a copy of the above referenced comments to the GDN article:
The Daily News (TheDailyNews)
June 7, 2009 12:00 AM
Reply | Request staff review
Cypress Bay subdivision neighbors sue city
LEAGUE CITY — The upscale Cypress Bay subdivision, under construction, has sparked a second lawsuit against the city.
Read more...
Comments in this discussion: 4
mike badder (blue06van)
June 7, 2009 6:16 AM #1 of 4
Reply | Request staff review
Cypress Bay subdivision, has broken many city,state, tx-dot rules, yet nothing has been done. We all know money rules, but who is getting the money? This subdivision/builder/city needs to be investigated.
Marc Edelman (medelman2k)
June 7, 2009 10:05 AM #2 of 4
Reply | Request staff review
Your implication that some how money is corrupting the process is outrageous. As a League City resident I have been watching this project very carefully. It has been done in a class A manner. I do not believe that the developer has broken any city, state or Tx dept of transportation rules. This particular issue is in a gray area. The ordinance says
"Canals, marinas, and other bodies of water that are created by dredging or removing land from existing land and connecting ultimately to navigable water must be a minimum of 50 feet from property that abuts the property from which the land is being removed."
In my opinion, this was an existing canal so it was not created by the developer. Its prior non conformance is most likely the question to be addressed, but that canal was there before zoning, so the no harm no foul rule should apply.
Gene Strong (bgstrong)
June 7, 2009 11:13 AM #3 of 4
Reply | Request staff review
Sounds to me like Scotto bought the City politicians. Not surprising..
Jeff Hagen (JeffHagen)
June 7, 2009 4:58 PM #4 of 4
Reply | Request staff review
Mr. Edelman,
Actually, in this case you are incorrect. The old canal that was in the vicinity of the properties in question in this lawsuit was above sea level and much smaller in width than the new canal. The Cypress Bay project dug it down to sea level depth and greatly widened it and removed the dam at the end of it, thus effectively creating a new canal. Furthermore, the previous canal was constructed prior to the neighborhood now including Twin Timbers being created and I believe prior to that area even being incorporated into the city, so there could have been no 'prior non conformance'. I know that you are well aware of this history. (As a member of the city government, it would be prudent for you to be more accurate in your factual statements regarding yet another lawsuit against the city.)
Just one of many issues where the Cypress Bay development has caused unnecessary and unreasonable grief for its neighbors. It is most unfortunate that the city government did such a poor job of watching this project. In fact, it would be quite reasonable to argue that this development has seen the poorest oversight by the city of any development in League City history.
Mr. Badder,
You are correct that the history of this project raises many questions. I have posted a number of documents that you may find of interest to starting your inquiries at this link:
http://web.me.com/jeffhagen/Jeffs_League_City_info/GC_bridge_documents.html
For example, by comparing the arial view posted as item 19 to Google Earth views prior to recent construction, you can see that Mr. Edelman's above statement is factually incorrect.
When Nick Scotto turned his wrath from Glen Cove on the east to Marina del Sol on the west, and the MDS folks stormed city hall the way GC folks have done, I mused how interesting it would be if MDS joined in the GC lawsuit. But a seperate one is just as good. This just keeps getting better.
Marc,
I never realized you were an attorney. Reading your posting on the Daily news web site makes me wonder how you can eat or walk. (You must be hopping on one foot with your other foot so far in your mouth) You confuse fact with opinion. Yours is just an opinion that holds no more weight than any other just like mine. I my opinion, (and for Kneel Baron , I am not an attorney) I believe the courts will show that you and your good old boys are wrong again. As for “distortion of the truth and his use of treachery to defame me.” Marc you seem to be doing a great job of distorting the truth and defaming yourself when you post. You do not need my help. Keep on going my friend this is great !
Generally speaking In my opinion I guess to some as long as the color is green anything can be gray.
Mr. Hagen,
Fair enough. Section 3 was just voted on. However Those on the P & Z who pushed through section 1 has caused the city and its taxpayers to be drug into court yet again, (let’s be kind and say) for whatever reason. In my opinion it may appear that special interests still are alive and well in League City, and this is could very well be a perfect example of that. I must admit that sometimes I do say a few extra words to get a reaction.
Paul,
As usual you and Mr. Hagen are wise. What you say is correct (in my opinion) and very telling regarding the little league lawyer and his bid to gain some degree, any degree of respectability from the public. Looks like the Cones, Hallisey, Edelman and Baron coalition has broken apart and it’s every man for themselves.
Mr. Hagen, (part 2),
In my opinion (trying to give you an out here Marc) Maybe someone took over Mr. Edelman’s computer. Does he really believe what he is saying?
It is interesting to me that only the homeowners on Twin Timbers are referenced in this action and not the Marina Del Sol HOA. Nick Scotto owns many undeveloped lots off of Marina Way within the Marina Del Sol subdivision. I am curious why the HOA is not supporting the homeowners on Twin Timbers.
Mr. Campbell,
There are deep unresolved issues between Marina Del Sol HOA, Nick Scotto, and their attorneys.
At present, all parties are quiet on HOA / Cypress Bay Issues.
I will pass on the question about why the HOA is not involved in the specific lawsuit issue.
Post a Comment