FW: Fly Creek PUD Amendment & the Deed to the City of the Most Sensitive 4 Acres

Mitsy, β€œemail to all council members and Mayor Wilson would greatly benefit the City. It concerns the importance and impact of the Deed of Gift from Corte to the City of the lowest 4 acres between the retention pond outfall pipe and Fly Creek.”

β€œAt the Council meeting there was confusion over the discovery that in Fall 2016 – while the developer was attempting to gain Site Plan Approval for a one-point drainage system through the out-fall pipe of the current detention in violation of the PUD Amendment 1572 requiring a non-point discharge system diffusing the water across the entire south side boundary – the Developer was also deeding to the City the entire 4 acre parcel, including wetlands, that the outfall pipe spills directly onto and is immediately adjacent and between the proposed project and Fly Creek.

Mayor Wilson appropriately expressed shock and concern that the City should not have taken ownership of this property. She was right.

The City is now not only acting as the City proper in relation to this PUD Amendment project, but is acting as a landowner. Big difference, and the timing suggests the developer knew it.

Under Alabama law, it is recognized β€œthe common law right of a lower landowner not to be injured by an upper landowner’s interference with the natural drainage of surface water onto the lower property. An alteration in the natural flow of surface water would be a wrongful interference with the lower landowner’s possessory rights and could constitute trespass or nuisance. See Ala.Code 1975, Β§ 6–5–213; Kay–Noojin Development Co. v. Kinzer, 259 Ala. 49, 65 So.2d 510 (1953); Sargent v. Lambert Construction Co., 378 So.2d 1153 (Ala.Civ.App.1979); see also Mitchell v. Mackin, 376 So.2d 684 (Ala.1979); Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523 (Ala.1979); andCity of Mountain Brook v. Beatty, 292 Ala. 398, 295 So.2d 388 (1974).”

The City is now the upper landowner in relation to everyone who lives downstream along Fly Creek. The City must now deal with all that such ownership brings with it under Alabama law.

Secondly, on the flip side of the coin, the City is now the lower landowner to the proposed project. The City now has the right, duty and obligation as the lower landowner not to cause injury to itself and the wetlands it now owns. The City now has a vested interest as the lower landowner in relation to the PUD project not to allow run-off, erosion, silt, sedimentation, etc. to its own property. The City has already adopted the Fly Creek Restoration Program of 2013 recognizing the environmental importance and sensitivity of the site.

The ownership of the 4 acre tract at this most critical and sensitive area changes the entire dynamics of the PUD Amendment and pending Site Plan review. Why would the City knowingly create all this exposure, obligation and duty on itself by becoming the owner of the most critical land area of the site.

In the Fall of 2016, the developer for the first time submitted a site plan to use the out-fall pipe as the primary release point. At the same time, deeded the property it was channeling all the water onto, and the intermediate land between the PUD and Fly Creek, to the City.

This PUD Amendment must be repealed now to not only protect the lower landowners downstream, not only to protect our City’s natural resources, but to the protect the City itself as an upper landowner from all properties downstream, and as the City now owns the wetlands and is a lower landowner to the PUD project.”


Sorry for the delay of the Ripp Report. CITY OF FAIRHOPE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY, 10 APRIL 2017 – 6:00 PM. – CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 5. Final Adoption – An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1572:…


This β€œgift” is compliments of Tim Kant ,Corte and the last City Council. Please stay tuned to see how the attorneys and those responsible spin the story. This is a complicated issue with many moving parts and many more questions than answers.
A comprehensive investigation into the ”gift” lift station, sewage lines and liability should be conducted. This can only be done by our elected officials. Failing to do this will aid any lawsuit pending or forthcoming and someone else doing the investigating, at taxpayers expense.

Whatever else let’s be fair:


For the 10th time citizens packed the city council chambers to discuss the Fly Creek Apartments and again their comments fell on deaf ears. Four councilmen voted for the extension of the sunset clause that allows the developer another 120 days to get a multiple occupancy site plan.


Read the latest πŸŽ‰ Terrific Tuesday πŸŽ‰!

13 Comments on "RE-GIFT GIFT ??"

  1. Locust Grove | May 5, 2017 at 3:09 pm |

    Criminals. All of the good ole boys have been exposed. You cannot spin this. They were caught. The city attorney and clerk said nothing and went along? Maybe this explains why the city attorney talked to the mayor like she was his pet dog? Those five councilmen are working for Corte. If you can’t see it you’re stupid. The city attorney is too. I don’t know about the city clerk but how does this get by everyone without a peep to the new mayor? Why the two sets of documents?

    Fairhope is beyond a joke. It is a criminal enterprise.

  2. Anonymous | May 5, 2017 at 7:38 pm |

    There are alot more pieces to this puzzle.

  3. Rhonda W. | May 6, 2017 at 2:00 am |

    Jay Robinson pees when Burrell tells him.

    • Anonymous | May 6, 2017 at 5:15 pm |

      I can see that.

    • Anonymous | May 9, 2017 at 5:06 pm |

      Why do you say that? I think he and the other new councilmen are doing pretty good considering they have only been in office 6 months. Seems to me Robinson does a great job of explaining the way he votes doing research with the Alabama League of Municipalities, I appreciate the prep work and research. He didn’t even vote with Burrell on some issues at the council meeting I attended. He and Conyers always seem to express their concerns respectfully.

  4. Booby J. | May 6, 2017 at 7:25 am |

    The feds are snooping around…let’s see what happens now that Bentley and Luther are gone. Is their no shame?

  5. Anonymous | May 6, 2017 at 5:16 pm |

    The Gift that will keep on Giving. In lawsuits.

  6. Laurie Little | May 7, 2017 at 6:40 am |

    The good ole boys (entire council) recruited well before the last election. They just figured they would be able to rig it like usual…they just needed placeholders…warm bodies to run. Ripp upturned the apple cart when he brought the AG’s legal counsel to oversee the election. This resulted in Kant’s defeat and the election of many of the new council that Ripp backed unknowingly. Now we can plainly see that there is much work to be done.

    One more legitimate election and we will have our city back.

    Ladies it is time. We must start recruiting candidates.

    Fairhope is not ruined yet. We can reclaim it from the GOB network. There are too many young families banking on it.

    Join forces against the evil of the GOB Network. The one Burrell says does not exist.

    • You are right one more election and go to districts and the GOB network will be severely weakened

      • Anonymous | May 9, 2017 at 10:11 pm |

        Hey, you agreed to stop the “GOB” term, you agreed to start using the “Old Guard” when referring to those within power that help each other! Stop the damn GOB talk!

  7. Nelson Whittaker | May 8, 2017 at 5:56 am |

    Why two signatures by both mayors? Why accept the gift and the liability? This looks seriously corrupt.

  8. Melvin Beam | May 10, 2017 at 9:13 am |

    When the apartments go in Then the sewer plant will overflow more. Then the citizens will have to pay for another plant. We already are paying three times the taxes than we were fifteen years ago.
    When will the people see that this cancerous and out of control growth costs us the citizens and only the developers, real estate people, and politicians benefit. When this is over, the politicians get our taxes and the real estate people and developers move on to another place to pillage.

Comments are closed.