March 10. Drive through issue heating up

The March 10 council meeting was relatively straightforward, except for one issue of concern to me.

First, here are a couple of informational highlights:

A local dentist expressed interest in the empty church at Ridgebury and Ford Road, but the parcel would probably have to be rezoned before it could be used for a professional office. The Muslim congregation who was interested in the church is looking elsewhere after learning that they would not be able to put a new exit/entrance driveway onto Ford Road.

Curbside Brush collection with begin on April 6th, and a computer recycling will take place in April as well. Old computers, monitors, and peripherals can be brought to the service garage b/w 8 am and 3:30 pm weekdays during April.

The matter of my concern:

The most active zoning issue right now is the proposal by Mr. Hersh, who owns the old Ron's Gas Shell station (corner of Wilson Mills and Bishop--across from Catalano's) to put an prefab, drive-through coffee hut on the property.

The Highland Heights zoning code does not allow drive-throughs.

Mr. Hersh went before Planning & Zoning (P&Z) on Monday March 9 to discuss his proposal. It is my understanding that he was hoping that P&Z would give him a variance to allow him to put a drive-through facility on his property.

It was reported to me that the P&Z Chairman, Bob Mastrangelo, stated that he had received a legal opinion from Tim Paluf, the city's attorney, that the issue would have to be placed on the ballot, as a zoning change issue, and that it could not be treated simply as a request by a property owner for a variance from the zoning code.

A separate, somewhat tangential concern that has been raised about Mr. Hersh's proposal is the fact that the coffee company involved, Bear Creek Coffee, is in financial trouble and may be about to file for bankruptcy protection. There are indications, based on information posted online, that the company may be in dispute with some of its franchisees as well.

Mr. Pilla, the councilman who sits on P&Z, usually gives a report about the P&Z meetings.

In giving his report about the Hirsh variance request, Mr. Pilla did not mention Mr. Paluf's legal opinion (that the issue had to go on the ballot), he reported that Bear Creek had a new president, and then he said, "I am arranging for a few of us to sit down" (with the new president of Bear Creek Coffee)." He also stated that he planned to bring the issue to the Committee of the Whole for discussion.

During the public portion of the meeting, I expressed my concern about the potential conflict of interest in having Mr. Pilla getting personally involved in the Hirsh zoning issue. I suggested, in connection with Mr. Mills' prior stated commitment to transparency, that maybe council should think about enacting its own set of conflict of interest rules to make sure that the public knew what hat or hats council members were wearing at all times.

Although Mr. Pilla stated, during my comments, that he was not an investor in the Bear Creek Coffee deal, when pressed further by Mrs. Murphy, Mr. Pilla repeated a disclosure that he apparently made to council several weeks ago (when I was out of town), namely that he does business with Mr. Hirsh. Mr. Pilla stated that he lists his property with Mr. Hirsh's firm.

I spoke with Council president, Scott Mills, after the meeting, and followed up with an e-mail the next day.

This is my concern: I am uncomfortable that Mr. Pilla, as a member of P&Z, has injected himself into, and is personally involved in, an unresolved matter that has been brought to, and is still pending before, P&Z.

The fact that Mr. Pilla has set up a meeting between himself and several others (who he did not name, but I was later told includes Mayor Coleman and Mr. Mills), indicates that Mr. Hirsh is still pursuing his drive-through plan.

While I understand that council members are quite naturally approached by residents looking for assistance in resolving matters with the city, in my mind it becomes problematic when a councilperson becomes personally and actively involved in an issue that he or she will be asked to decide, while acting as a designated city decisionmaker.

My own personal feeling is that it crosses the line of propriety, when a councilperson who is a P&Z member becomes personally involved on behalf of a property owner who is asking the P&Z to give him relief/dispensation from the zoning ordinances.

Lawyers are barred from acting in such a way that there may be a "mere appearance of impropriety." I think the same should hold true for council members.

What concerned me further, is that Mr. Mills indicated to me that he both knew of, and approved, of Mr. Pilla's involvement in the Hirsh zoning matter.

As I told Mr. Mills in my e-mail to him: I know that he is doing his best to be actively supportive of economic development in the city, which I applaud and know is a daunting task right now, but I don’t necessarily think that the city's processes and laws have to be compromised to reach that goal.

It's perfectly appropriate for Mr. Hersh to bring the coffee company's president before P&Z or council if he thinks that will help his case (although who the president is really has no impact on the zoning issue involved). But I think that is how the matter should be handled.

Having the council member who sits on P&Z state that he is putting together a behind closed doors meeting on the property owner's behalf (which apparently includes a short list of invitees, namely the mayor and the council president)?
No, I dont think so.