New Territory Residents Voice Concerns Over Development Project

RESIDENTS VOICE CONCERNS OVER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Some Greystone Place residents have threatened to sue the NTRCA if the board allows a financial investor to develop property behind their homes, on the south side of the levee, said homeowner Paul Hillegeist in an October 19 email to board members. “Please be aware that Greystone Place residents living along the Brazos River levee will pursue litigation as necessary to the full extent of the law to prevent any activity behind Greystone Place that would significantly change or restrict the current landscape and privacy as this is directly opposite to the spirit of the original developer, Markborough, and subsequently Coventry Homes and Newmark (sic, who sold homes in Greystone),” wrote Hillegeist.
In a subsequent phone conversation, Hillegesit said the threatened litigation does not refer to plans by LID 7 to raise the levee (see story, page 6 ).
Rather, residents are concerned about the construction of any recreational or commercial facilities in the NTRCA owned property behind their homes because the NTRCA entered into a contract in 2006 with financial investor Frank Marx that gave him an exclusive, five year option on the land and which gave the NTRCA the unconditional right to approve or reject any proposed project by him. The land includes two tracts south of the levee. One tract, 66 acres, exists west of U.S. 99 and south of the Sports Complex, parking lot, and Brandons Point subdivision. The other tract, 96 acres, is east of US 99, south of Greystone Place, Watermill, and runs all the way down to US 59. Because Markborough, the developer of New Territory, attached restrictions for future use and development on that land, the NTRCA would have to remove those restrictions in order for Marx to proceed with plans . Marx is reportedly expected to hire an attorney, at his expense, to negotiate with Markborough for the release of the restrictions, said NTRCA Community Manager Dwayne Lowry. While Marx has not proposed anything specific for the land behind Greystone Place or Watermill, he has considered building a hotel and/or shopping center in the land adjacent to US 59, said Lowry. The NTRCA could retain ownership of the land and control over what is built there, he said. But they could lease it to a developer and possibly even share in the revenues, he said. “New Territory could benefit, year after year, and get full say on what is developed there,” commented Lowry.
Even if the restrictions were lifted, the land comes with another problem: it’s in a floodway. In order to build a commercial structure, the developer would have to obtain a permit which entails a mitigation plan and a drainage detention plan, said a representative in the Fort Bend County Engineering Department. “I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it sounds like it would be really
challenging and tremendously expensive to do something like that...to get (the land) adequately prepped and to get the right elevations,” said Doug Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director for the City of Sugar Land.
Hatfield noted that Marx indicated that “engineering solutions were available” and the project could be “economically feasible.”
However, “until... an answer on the restrictions is obtained, it is perfectly clear why Mr. Marx has not spent any money to start the necessary studies,” commented NTRCA President, Bart Hatfield in a letter to residents.
Hillegeist said he is “fine” with development in the section along US 59 but is opposed to any development south of the residential areas in New Territory. “We all paid premiums for our lots,” he said. “Please note that Greystone Place would be vigorously opposed to any NTRCA support of plans that would allow for any changes or alterations to the viewable green space and tranquility within the green space along the levee…” he said in the email.
Lowry said that Marx had discussed the construction of recreational facilities in that area, such as a nine-hole golf course, hiking trails, or relocating sports fields from the sports complex there but said, “nothing was fleshed out,” for any such projects.
“We recognize there are homes behind there and want to preserve the landscape, but there is another long strip near Telfair,” he said, referring to the land that extends down to US 59.
Greystone Resident Shari Chadderdon also voiced concern that the NTRCA may be considering a proposal to relocate the athletic fields to one of the two tracts and build a commercial center on the sports complex site. Lowry said there are no specific plans for the sports complex but acknowledged that Marx had proposed building bigger, better fields and a parking lot south of the levee system, at no charge to the NTRCA.
Lowry added that it was his understanding that Markborough had originally zoned the sports complex for commercial development, including another grocery store and a strip center. They bowed to opposition from another New Territory commercial developer, however, and built the Sports Complex instead, Lowry said.
Marx also has an option on the three drill sites in New Territory but there has been no substantive discussion on developments in those areas, said Lowry.
Hillegeist said the Greystone Place neighbors have not hired an attorney or taken steps towards filing legal action against the NTRCA. But it may come to that, he said. “I don’t know why they are so against green space...they are not a commercial development agency or a for-profit association and they should leave well enough alone,” he said.
“There seems to be a conflict of interest among those board members who think our community is in the business of making money with a developer who incidentally has ties to the landscaping company instead of protecting our property values,” Chadderdon wrote in an October 19 email to the board. Marx is married to the owner of HLS, the NTRCA’s contracted landscaper/groundskeeper, and that is how he learned of the NTRCA owned land, said Hatfield.
The NTRCA board has not publicly addressed the complaints. Lowry commented that the NTRCA would retain control of any developments authorized by the board. A significant and ongoing revenue stream could offer opportunities for financial stability and/or future improvements that would benefit the entire community, he said.
But, without an answer from Markborough on whether they are willing to lift the restrictions, “it makes no sense for us to spend any time evaluating potential ideas or answering detailed inquiries on what he might propose,” said Hatfield.