Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
LeBlanc clarifies ACND action
 |
| Residents attending the Aransas County Navigation District meeting Monday first met at the ACND offices, but the gathering had to be moved to Rockport City Hall in order to provide more seating. Photo by NORMA MARTINEZ |
By NORMA MARTINEZ, Managing Editor
The Aransas County Navigation District board of commissioners took no action to change the previous approval of an item regarding Little Bay Marine, but Chairman Charles LeBlanc did read a statement clarifying that aforementioned action.
Due to an overflow crowd, and in an effort to make the audience more comfortable, a 3-2 split vote of the board recessed the meeting at the ACND offices and moved it to Rockport City Hall.
The first item on the agenda requested the possible change in meeting location. Upon opening of the meeting, Commissioner Merlin Hartdegen made a motion to recess in order to move the meeting to city hall. It was seconded by Commissioner Felix Keeley.
LeBlanc pointed out the number of persons present was not above capacity (as allowed by fire code).
Hartdegen said he was aware of that but stated, “Let's make these people more comfortable.” There were a number of people standing around the room as there were no more chairs, and several were standing in the outer office.
LeBlanc called for the vote on the motion and Hartdegen and Keeley voted for it. LeBlanc and Commissioner Tony Dominguez voted against it. Commissioner Sam Canterbury said, “Let's just move it,” and the motion carried 3-2.
After reconvening at City Hall, prior to the agenda item addressing the board's previous action, two audience members addressed the board in regard to that item.
Bill Cobb presented a petition to ACND commissioners which features 605 signatures. He said due to environmental degradation of Little Bay, the petitioners request: a one-year moratorium on leasing or exchanging of submerged lands in Little Bay; a one-year moratorium on construction of docks, piers, or other facilities not directly related to the conservation or preservation of wildlife and/or natural resources on Little Bay; and to conduct a public hearing/workshop to inform the public and obtain public and scientific input regarding the future of Little Bay.
Lamar Story, ACND commissioner-elect for Precinct 2, began to read a letter which had been published in The Rockport Pilot Saturday, Dec. 1.
He was stopped by LeBlanc who pointed out the letter is in direct reference to agenda item No. 3, stating Story could address the board at that time.
When addressing agenda Item No. 3, which was for “discussion and clarification with regard to action taken by the commission in Agenda Item No. IV-10 at regular meeting on Nov. 19, 2007, concerning the relocation of docks within Little Bay Marine lease areas,” LeBlanc read the following statement:
“It probably will be informative for members of the public to learn the true status of this matter. All members of this commission have had this information for some time.
“The great concern stated in the newspaper and certain letters to the editor, to the effect this commission, at our meeting on Nov. 19, granted permission to construct an extensive set of new docks out into Little Bay, is not correct. Immediately following that meeting there were some questions raised about the meaning of that action, and within two days there was a meeting with our tenant to discuss this. In that meeting it was made clear to the tenant that the action of this commission did not give the tenant the right to construct new docks in a new location and the tenant agreed that he will submit another more definitive request if he wants to pursue this matter further. That issue has been resolved since Nov. 21.”
LeBlanc provided background as follows: Norrell's company, Little Bay Marine Inc., has two leases of submerged land from the ACND. The first lease was granted to him in 2002 as part of a settlement of previous litigation and was signed by Felix Keeley and then-commissioner Lynn Wildman. That lease is for two separate tracts of 804.04 square feet and 2,732.27 square feet for a total of 3,536.31 square feet, or about .2002 acre, referred to as lease No. 1. LeBlanc said, “It clearly states that the lessee has the right to construct piers or docks, floating or otherwise, within the two areas in that lease. The tenant has constructed floating docks in those areas of an amount less than totally permitted. He has the right to increase or decrease the amount piers (sic) or docks within those areas and relocate the piers or docks from one of the areas to the other area as long as he does not exceed the total area leased.”
Norrell also has another lease, referred to as lease No. 2, for approximately three acres of submerged land. That lease was signed this year. LeBlanc said, “That second lease does not grant the right to construct any structures, including piers or docks, without first requesting a new lease.”
He quoted agenda item No. 10 of the Nov. 19 meeting stating the motion that was carried was to approve the request subject to no increase in the size of the floating docks.
LeBlanc said, “Please note we cannot approve any item that is not on our agenda. The motion I made was intended to be limited to that agenda item. The motion approved has nothing to do with lease No. 2 since the lease clearly states the tenant cannot build any structure in the three acres without first obtaining a new lease.”
He said Norrell has a diagram he labeled exhibit C, but it was not attached to any document, or a past, approved, or proposed lease. “Therefore that exhibit has no bearing on the action taken in our meeting only approving the relocation of floating docks within lease area No. 1.”
LeBlanc continued, “It is my understanding from the subsequent meeting with Mr. Norrell that he may want to present to the commission this Exhibit C to be attached to a new proposed lease within the area of lease No. 2, but, as of this date, no such request has been submitted by the tenant. Neither Commissioner Canterbury nor I gave Mr. Norrell any indication either of us would support such a request if it is made.”
He said those lease areas are in Canterbury's precinct. After the Nov. 19 meeting, Canterbury had questions concerning the action taken and contacted ACND attorney Gerald Benadum.
The next day, Canterbury, Benadum and LeBlanc had discussions concerning whether the action taken at the Nov. 10 meeting was not clear.
LeBlanc said he then invited Norrell to meet with them to clarify any potential misunderstandings.
On Nov. 21, LeBlanc held a meeting at the ACND office with Canterbury, Benadum, Harbormaster Keith Barrett, Norrell, and Greg Norrell. The Norrell's attorney also was contacted and was on speakerphone for part of the meeting.
LeBlanc said, “Mr. Norrell did not completely agree with our attorney about several issues, but eventually and reluctantly accepted that the motion approved by the commission does not give him the right to put any docks in lease area 2. Mr. Norrell thought he was asking for more, but he did not obtain such.”
LeBlanc said the results of that meeting were reported to the other ACND commissioners by Benadum.
The chairman then said, “The point of all of this is that any potential misunderstandings were solved very shortly after our action of Nov. 19, 2007. Since that date, four issues of a local newspaper have been printed with a variety of condemnations and opinions of what actual (sic) transpired which are extremely far off from the actual actions taken or made.
“Some of those articles and letters say there is an established policy of not allowing further construction in Little Bay. This commission favored that idea and followed that as a practice. We have looked for such a policy, but there is no record that any previous commission adopted such a policy.
“We had an agenda item for one of our recent meetings to begin a discussion of what the policies should be for Little Bay, but some members of this commission and the audience objected to discussion of that item and the matter was tabled without discussion.
“Before that, I encountered similar resistance when I tried to force some examination of what damage is being caused by the city's increased stormwater discharge. I would like to believe that the next commission will also act responsibly to determine what actions may be needed to protect this community's invaluable and irreplaceable natural assets.”
LeBlanc concluded, “Further, let me state that some people have referred to this commission as lame-duck. We are not a lame-duck board of commissioners since we retain full authority and the responsibility to continue to manage the business of this district until our replacements are sworn into office. I take that responsibility seriously and I am continuing to try to do my duty in this public office in spite of the inaccurate and shameful attacks.”
Nancy Norrell addressed the board next, explaining as co-owner of Little Bay Marine, she wants to clarify what they are trying to do.
She said they want to move 3,500 square feet of dock space into deeper waters to lessen the impact on Little Bay. She provided copies of an environmental impact study about the project by Belaire Environmental Inc. which explain how the area will be impacted.
She said information in the newspaper and letters to the editor regarding their proposal has been “blatantly deceiving,” and has “distracted from the real issues.”
She thanked the current board for their assistance in trying to clarify the situation.
John Joslin, commissioner-elect of Precinct 4-4A, spoke next about his Dec. 1 letter to the editor. He said he asked the board to rescind the action of Nov. 19 until such time as a complete plan is presented in an open workshop where the pubic has time to comment.
He said, “I ask the current board to act responsibly and to admit they were wrong and acted too soon with not enough information.”
He then reiterated his request asking the board to rescind the approval of Nov. 19.
Story then spoke stating after hearing LeBlanc's explanation, “It appears (the action) should be rescinded more than ever.”
He said based on the explanation, it appears the ACND board basically gave Norrell permission to move his docks within his leasehold, something he is already allowed to do based on the language in his lease.
Story said, “We're all still confused.”
Hartdegen reminded the board he had asked Norrell at that Nov. 19 meeting two questions, both to which he replied, “maybe.” He asked if fill would be necessary for relocation of the docks and if pilings would be necessary.
Charles Smith, Precinct 3 county commissioner, reminded LeBlanc he had asked if the passing of the agenda item would result in the docks being relocated to the new three-acre lease. “You said yes,” Smith said, adding perhaps LeBlanc was confused about the lease to which Smith was referring.
LeBlanc was questioned why the private meeting was necessary with Norrell if action taken Nov. 19 was clear.
The chairman said they wanted to clarify Norrell understood the action approved by the board.
When asked why the meeting was held privately and not made public, LeBlanc said there was no time to post a public meeting.
LeBlanc was then questioned about what it was Norrell showed “reluctance” about, to which the chairman said it was a legal question about metes and bounds of both leases.
Referring back to the Nov. 19 agenda item, LeBlanc was asked if he knows the size of docks which currently exist on Norrell's property. The chairman said he does not.
He was then asked, “Shouldn't you have known the size of those docks before you approved their relocation?”
LeBlanc responded by stating the size of the docks do not matter because Norrell is allowed to construct docks within lease No. 1.
There were no other questions asked of the board in this matter. Many of the answers provided left audience members with only more questions, as evident by the discussions as people left the meeting.
Due to an overflow crowd, and in an effort to make the audience more comfortable, a 3-2 split vote of the board recessed the meeting at the ACND offices and moved it to Rockport City Hall.
The first item on the agenda requested the possible change in meeting location. Upon opening of the meeting, Commissioner Merlin Hartdegen made a motion to recess in order to move the meeting to city hall. It was seconded by Commissioner Felix Keeley.
LeBlanc pointed out the number of persons present was not above capacity (as allowed by fire code).
Hartdegen said he was aware of that but stated, “Let's make these people more comfortable.” There were a number of people standing around the room as there were no more chairs, and several were standing in the outer office.
LeBlanc called for the vote on the motion and Hartdegen and Keeley voted for it. LeBlanc and Commissioner Tony Dominguez voted against it. Commissioner Sam Canterbury said, “Let's just move it,” and the motion carried 3-2.
After reconvening at City Hall, prior to the agenda item addressing the board's previous action, two audience members addressed the board in regard to that item.
Bill Cobb presented a petition to ACND commissioners which features 605 signatures. He said due to environmental degradation of Little Bay, the petitioners request: a one-year moratorium on leasing or exchanging of submerged lands in Little Bay; a one-year moratorium on construction of docks, piers, or other facilities not directly related to the conservation or preservation of wildlife and/or natural resources on Little Bay; and to conduct a public hearing/workshop to inform the public and obtain public and scientific input regarding the future of Little Bay.
Lamar Story, ACND commissioner-elect for Precinct 2, began to read a letter which had been published in The Rockport Pilot Saturday, Dec. 1.
He was stopped by LeBlanc who pointed out the letter is in direct reference to agenda item No. 3, stating Story could address the board at that time.
When addressing agenda Item No. 3, which was for “discussion and clarification with regard to action taken by the commission in Agenda Item No. IV-10 at regular meeting on Nov. 19, 2007, concerning the relocation of docks within Little Bay Marine lease areas,” LeBlanc read the following statement:
“It probably will be informative for members of the public to learn the true status of this matter. All members of this commission have had this information for some time.
“The great concern stated in the newspaper and certain letters to the editor, to the effect this commission, at our meeting on Nov. 19, granted permission to construct an extensive set of new docks out into Little Bay, is not correct. Immediately following that meeting there were some questions raised about the meaning of that action, and within two days there was a meeting with our tenant to discuss this. In that meeting it was made clear to the tenant that the action of this commission did not give the tenant the right to construct new docks in a new location and the tenant agreed that he will submit another more definitive request if he wants to pursue this matter further. That issue has been resolved since Nov. 21.”
LeBlanc provided background as follows: Norrell's company, Little Bay Marine Inc., has two leases of submerged land from the ACND. The first lease was granted to him in 2002 as part of a settlement of previous litigation and was signed by Felix Keeley and then-commissioner Lynn Wildman. That lease is for two separate tracts of 804.04 square feet and 2,732.27 square feet for a total of 3,536.31 square feet, or about .2002 acre, referred to as lease No. 1. LeBlanc said, “It clearly states that the lessee has the right to construct piers or docks, floating or otherwise, within the two areas in that lease. The tenant has constructed floating docks in those areas of an amount less than totally permitted. He has the right to increase or decrease the amount piers (sic) or docks within those areas and relocate the piers or docks from one of the areas to the other area as long as he does not exceed the total area leased.”
Norrell also has another lease, referred to as lease No. 2, for approximately three acres of submerged land. That lease was signed this year. LeBlanc said, “That second lease does not grant the right to construct any structures, including piers or docks, without first requesting a new lease.”
He quoted agenda item No. 10 of the Nov. 19 meeting stating the motion that was carried was to approve the request subject to no increase in the size of the floating docks.
LeBlanc said, “Please note we cannot approve any item that is not on our agenda. The motion I made was intended to be limited to that agenda item. The motion approved has nothing to do with lease No. 2 since the lease clearly states the tenant cannot build any structure in the three acres without first obtaining a new lease.”
He said Norrell has a diagram he labeled exhibit C, but it was not attached to any document, or a past, approved, or proposed lease. “Therefore that exhibit has no bearing on the action taken in our meeting only approving the relocation of floating docks within lease area No. 1.”
LeBlanc continued, “It is my understanding from the subsequent meeting with Mr. Norrell that he may want to present to the commission this Exhibit C to be attached to a new proposed lease within the area of lease No. 2, but, as of this date, no such request has been submitted by the tenant. Neither Commissioner Canterbury nor I gave Mr. Norrell any indication either of us would support such a request if it is made.”
He said those lease areas are in Canterbury's precinct. After the Nov. 19 meeting, Canterbury had questions concerning the action taken and contacted ACND attorney Gerald Benadum.
The next day, Canterbury, Benadum and LeBlanc had discussions concerning whether the action taken at the Nov. 10 meeting was not clear.
LeBlanc said he then invited Norrell to meet with them to clarify any potential misunderstandings.
On Nov. 21, LeBlanc held a meeting at the ACND office with Canterbury, Benadum, Harbormaster Keith Barrett, Norrell, and Greg Norrell. The Norrell's attorney also was contacted and was on speakerphone for part of the meeting.
LeBlanc said, “Mr. Norrell did not completely agree with our attorney about several issues, but eventually and reluctantly accepted that the motion approved by the commission does not give him the right to put any docks in lease area 2. Mr. Norrell thought he was asking for more, but he did not obtain such.”
LeBlanc said the results of that meeting were reported to the other ACND commissioners by Benadum.
The chairman then said, “The point of all of this is that any potential misunderstandings were solved very shortly after our action of Nov. 19, 2007. Since that date, four issues of a local newspaper have been printed with a variety of condemnations and opinions of what actual (sic) transpired which are extremely far off from the actual actions taken or made.
“Some of those articles and letters say there is an established policy of not allowing further construction in Little Bay. This commission favored that idea and followed that as a practice. We have looked for such a policy, but there is no record that any previous commission adopted such a policy.
“We had an agenda item for one of our recent meetings to begin a discussion of what the policies should be for Little Bay, but some members of this commission and the audience objected to discussion of that item and the matter was tabled without discussion.
“Before that, I encountered similar resistance when I tried to force some examination of what damage is being caused by the city's increased stormwater discharge. I would like to believe that the next commission will also act responsibly to determine what actions may be needed to protect this community's invaluable and irreplaceable natural assets.”
LeBlanc concluded, “Further, let me state that some people have referred to this commission as lame-duck. We are not a lame-duck board of commissioners since we retain full authority and the responsibility to continue to manage the business of this district until our replacements are sworn into office. I take that responsibility seriously and I am continuing to try to do my duty in this public office in spite of the inaccurate and shameful attacks.”
Nancy Norrell addressed the board next, explaining as co-owner of Little Bay Marine, she wants to clarify what they are trying to do.
She said they want to move 3,500 square feet of dock space into deeper waters to lessen the impact on Little Bay. She provided copies of an environmental impact study about the project by Belaire Environmental Inc. which explain how the area will be impacted.
She said information in the newspaper and letters to the editor regarding their proposal has been “blatantly deceiving,” and has “distracted from the real issues.”
She thanked the current board for their assistance in trying to clarify the situation.
John Joslin, commissioner-elect of Precinct 4-4A, spoke next about his Dec. 1 letter to the editor. He said he asked the board to rescind the action of Nov. 19 until such time as a complete plan is presented in an open workshop where the pubic has time to comment.
He said, “I ask the current board to act responsibly and to admit they were wrong and acted too soon with not enough information.”
He then reiterated his request asking the board to rescind the approval of Nov. 19.
Story then spoke stating after hearing LeBlanc's explanation, “It appears (the action) should be rescinded more than ever.”
He said based on the explanation, it appears the ACND board basically gave Norrell permission to move his docks within his leasehold, something he is already allowed to do based on the language in his lease.
Story said, “We're all still confused.”
Hartdegen reminded the board he had asked Norrell at that Nov. 19 meeting two questions, both to which he replied, “maybe.” He asked if fill would be necessary for relocation of the docks and if pilings would be necessary.
Charles Smith, Precinct 3 county commissioner, reminded LeBlanc he had asked if the passing of the agenda item would result in the docks being relocated to the new three-acre lease. “You said yes,” Smith said, adding perhaps LeBlanc was confused about the lease to which Smith was referring.
LeBlanc was questioned why the private meeting was necessary with Norrell if action taken Nov. 19 was clear.
The chairman said they wanted to clarify Norrell understood the action approved by the board.
When asked why the meeting was held privately and not made public, LeBlanc said there was no time to post a public meeting.
LeBlanc was then questioned about what it was Norrell showed “reluctance” about, to which the chairman said it was a legal question about metes and bounds of both leases.
Referring back to the Nov. 19 agenda item, LeBlanc was asked if he knows the size of docks which currently exist on Norrell's property. The chairman said he does not.
He was then asked, “Shouldn't you have known the size of those docks before you approved their relocation?”
LeBlanc responded by stating the size of the docks do not matter because Norrell is allowed to construct docks within lease No. 1.
There were no other questions asked of the board in this matter. Many of the answers provided left audience members with only more questions, as evident by the discussions as people left the meeting.
 |
||
| RPD clears thefts after arrest of |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of rockportpilot.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
cheri palmer wrote on Mar 15, 2009 10:38 PM: