TAPHouston

I don't believe the vote was quite that lopsided, especially with regard to districts other than Woodland Heights. Lovell did indeed affirmatively state that there would be a ballot vote and there was NO qualification in her statement; however, when I asked her after the meeting to confirm she meant what she said, she claimed she didn't say that and why would she send a ballot when the vote was clear. I pointed out that she had used the word "guaranty" when she said there would be a repetition. She became very agitated and eventually said she wouldn't talk to me any more because I called her a liar. A couple of things were clear: Lovell is being very underhanded in how she is conducting these meetings. In addition to her misrepresentations about a repetition, she and the other city employees carefully culled through the written questions and would read one question but provide an answer to a different question. Second, it is clear that neither Lovell nor the other city representatives have much idea of what is in the ordinance. At one point, a city representative answered a question about fences by saying they weren't covered and by pointing out that you don't even need a permit unless it exceeds a certain height. Of course, fences are specifically enumerated in the list of items that constitute alterations. The question about landscaping came up. Again they claimed that it wasn't covered. Again the plain language of the ordinance covers any alteration to the "site," defined as the property. I'm sure this is a done deal but I'm glad I saw just how dishonest/uninformed/clueless (take your pick) our city officials are.

I live in North Norhill and there are objective guidelines already in place--the deed restrictions. They include set backs from the front, rear, and side lot lines, and we have a prevailing lot size to prevent the division of the lots. The historical ordinance is meant to do one thing: prevent a property owner from making any changes to the exterior of the property he owns. It has nothing to do with making sure one property use does not infringe on another's property. Those proscriptions are already in place.