Today the Judge 405th State District Court, Judge Wayne Mallia, in the case of 3:09 McGahee et al vs City of League City issued a summary Judgement in favor of the defendant the City of League City and a an intervening party with regards to the Twin Timbers Lawsuit. Residents along Twin Timbers street in League City, filed a lawsuit against the City of League City, alleging that the city's Planning and Zoning Commission wrongfully approved plats for a subdivision adjoining the canal, Cypress Bay, in violation of it's own ordinances barring new canals being built within 50 feet of a property line. The judge determined that the canal in question was an existing canal and so therefore the ordinance does not apply to this situation. It is sad that the citizens and the business people of this community must pay for lawsuits of this nature. I hope that the good citizens of League City will read about this legal action against the city and realize that these lawsuits have a tremendous cost to the city. In my opinion, the citizens should hold the plaintiffs behind these lawsuits accountable to reimburse all of us for the legal defense of these types of legal actions brought against the city.
Full set of Comments from Article in the Galveston Daily News June 7, 2009
Article in the Galveston Daily News June 7, 2009
Marc Edelman (medelman2k)
June 7, 2009 10:05 AM #2 of 14
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.
Jeff Hagen (JeffHagen)
June 7, 2009 4:58 PM #4 of 14
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:
Jeff Hagen's link
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment