Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mesquite resident urges council to halt actions tied to disputed Red Hills parcel map
Summary
A Mesquite property director told the council the 2007 Red Hills final map is 'defective' and urged the city to stop relying on Red Hills maps and CC&Rs while litigation continues, saying doing otherwise could put the city at legal risk and could affect liquor-license approvals tied to disputed parcels.
Raelene Chvano, director for Nordic Beach Properties, told the City of Mesquite at its Dec. 2 technical review meeting that the Red Hills 2007 final map is "defective" and "not legal," and she asked the council to stop relying on that map and related CC&Rs while litigation is pending.
"The parade is this Thursday" — although the meeting included community announcements, Chvano concentrated on a map dispute she said leaves lots labeled 4 C 2 and 3 D 2 off the lawful parcel map. "Since they don't exist, they're first, those lots are not on a lawful map," she said, describing HOA voting thresholds and saying Nordic Beach owns about 33.33 percent and has voted no on certain actions.
Chvano said the HOA's recorded CC&Rs appear in "book 11, page 35" and argued the 2007 amendment was "not done legally." She warned that relying on contested maps or CC&Rs while litigation is ongoing could expose the city to legal risk: "they are not legal, and it's gonna put the city in a bad position," she said, and asked the council to remove related items from the agenda until the court resolves the dispute.
She also raised a separate but related concern about a business she said has been operating since Oct. 31 and "already been serving liquor," arguing that if litigation prevents the city from enforcing parking requirements it should likewise prevent the city from approving liquor licenses or CUPs that depend on parking calculations.
City staff and other council members did not announce a formal action to remove the contested items during the meeting. Chvano said she had contacted county staff and that the county was "as confused as I am" and was investigating how the parcels appeared on the map. The meeting record shows the comment was raised during public comment; no immediate enforcement or licensing decision was announced before the meeting adjourned.
The council did not vote on removing agenda item 5.4 during this session; the item and related permit or license questions remain subject to follow-up by staff and possible future council action.
