January 23, 2023
Commissioners,
At the January 9, 2022 City Commissioner’s Meeting, Vice Mayor Lindlau made several unfounded remarks in an effort to disparage my character and damage my reputation. Vice Mayor Lindlau claimed that I violated state law, by misusing my position as city commissioner. He asserted that I was motivated by revenge and used my position to prevent a corporation from earning money. Click here to view the exchange. Click here to read the transcript.
“This is nothing more than you Joe, using your position to try and get back at Kimley-Horn…You’ve got an axe to grind with them and so you’re trying to get back at them by stopping this and taking money out of their pocket” said Vice Mayor Lindlau. Merriam Webster’s definition of get back at: “is to do something bad or unpleasant to (someone who has treated one badly or unfairly).”
Vice Mayor Lindlau went on to claim that “legal fees that we’ve occurred by you and your neighbors are over $50,000.” Again, attacking my character by mischaracterizing my intent while I was acting as a representative of a group of concerned citizens opposed to a zoning change. Vice Mayor Lindlau made the remarkable claim, “all that money that we had to pay Scott to fight this lawsuit that you instigated…” The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of instigate is: “Instigate implies responsibility for initiating or encouraging someone else’s action and usually suggests dubious or underhanded intent.”
Essentially Vice Mayor Lindlau accused me of doing something bad or unpleasant, and something else in a dubious or underhanded way. I challenge the Vice Mayor to produce evidence that supports his claims and to explain his misgivings with a colleague who presented well documented evidence to our city, of improprieties committed before this commission. To see the evidence, click here. Vice Mayor Lindlau’s words and actions serve to stifle information and evidence that our city needs to protect itself and provide equal application of our laws.
Surely Vice Mayor Lindlau cannot have a problem with a group of citizens appealing a decision made by the commission. The state of Florida has made provisions for citizens to do so if they disagree. Does Vice Mayor Lindlau feel that his judgment outweighs common law? That is a lofty perch. It’s like he’s got a – I decide who lives and dies thing going on there. A worrisome temperament for someone in public service.
Vice Mayor Lindlau and Mayor Gibson both accuse me of costing the city more than $50,000 dollars in legal fees. To see the Mayor’s Facebook post, Click here. One says $50,000 and the other says $54,000. Pick a number, truth be damned. An astute observer may see things differently. Click here to view a comprehensive list of charges by the attorney. Here is a list of billing invoices the city administrator presented as representing the cost of legal fee’s pertaining to the zoning appeal.
Here are the actual invoices Attorney Simpson submitted to the city for payment. The highlighted portion reflects an actual charge for legal services pertaining to the appeal.
The citizens that our city commission condemn, were merely exercising their right to participate in a civic process. A mountain of evidence, revelations of impropriety, and a lack of consideration by this commission, compelled a group of citizens to take action and hold this commission to account. Not spite or “to get back” at anyone as Vice Mayor Lindlau proclaims.
If you don’t like the laws then change them, but until you do so, follow them. This mechanism provides for everybody to be on the same page with equal footing. Everyone understands the rules, they are written. Citizens are not expected to anticipate the notions of a member of this commission, they have the laws of our city to rely on. When that safeguard is removed, we are no longer a civilization.
Mayor Gibson and the Vice Mayor both claim that the legal actions taken by citizens cost the city either $50,000 or $54,000 dollars depending on who you’re talking to. This deflection of responsibility should concern all citizens because the onus lies with the city. It is crystal clear to all parties concerned that the laws of our city require that a topographical survey be included with the application when a developer approaches the city with a project. In the case that Mayor Gibson and Vice Mayor Lindlau are referring to, the evidence supporting the notion that a topographical survey is required, but in this circumstance, is missing, is overwhelming. All concerned parties concede that a sealed topographical survey is a required document at the time of application.
Below is just a sampling of improprieties discovered by concerned citizens. A more comprehensive list can be found here.
The Mayor makes reference to the missing document in the final moments of the second reading. Transcript page 75, lines 20-23. He tells the concerned citizens that he doesn’t think a judge would hold up this project over the missing document. A thumb in the eye to all the efforts of his constituency. On page 62, lines 4-7, of the same transcript , Attorney Simpson counsels the commission that the Topographical survey is required during the application process.
When our city administrator reveals to our city attorney Scott Simpson that she waived the required topographical survey for garden street communities, he tells her that he didn’t think she had the authority to give the developer a waiver. Click here, to review the email. This overreach was revealed through a public records request. The consequence of inconsistent application of our city’s law comes to fruition when the developer insists that he should be privy to the same privileges that developers before him were given.
Public records request reveals that the city held a hearing, after telling the public that they would not be discussing the subjects that had compelled them to attend. To review a transcript of that meeting, click here.
After the Attorney representing the group of citizens opposed to the zoning change warned the commission over and over again, and even our own Attorney Simpson warned the commission that they should table the issue until the developer suppled the required survey. To review the transcript of the meeting, click here. Look at page 62, lines 4 thru 7.
The Developer submitted his application without a tree survey which is required by city ordinance.
A rookery of Great Blue Herons exists on the property mainly in the southwest corner. They use the tall pine trees pines to nest and raise their offspring. This was brought to the attention of the commission when a concerned citizen provided a video of the birds nesting. Policy 1-4 of our comprehensive plan indicates that “Habitats and vegetative communities shall be protected,” and policy 1.4.2 specifies that the rookery be listed in the conservation element of the comprehensive land use plan as endangered, threated or species of special concern and shall be protected by inclusion of their habitats or vegetative communities on the Future Land Use Map or map series. Any proposed use for such areas must be accompanied by a mitigation study prepared in accordance with the governing Volusia County Ordinance in effect at the time. When asked, the developer told the commission that it was his intent to remove all the tall pines on the properties. The commission, in its zeal to approve the zoning change, failed to act on the evidence and ignored the requirements outlined in our comprehensive plan.
The notion that I and the citizens of our community are somehow at fault for $50 or $54,000 being squandered to protect those who failed to act in the interest of our community is exactly why we are here. How on earth can the commission justify spending $54,000 defending a simple zoning change? The only one who stands to benefit from the city’s choice to spend that money defending an appeal of their voluntary decision to grant the zoning change is the developer.
Perhaps a wiser path would have been to ask the developer to provide the required documents because it’s the law. But because the commission chose to double down against the will of the community, the citizens sought justice. The city could have not responded to the appeal and let a summary judgement compel the developer to submit a complete application. Good stewardship of taxpayer money, not a more obedient public, would have saved our precious tax dollar.
Joe Catigano
Oak Hill City Commissioner
Seat #3
