Residents’ Top Priority: Preserving High Quality Residential Life in Our City

Notes from the July 27th Council Meeting. Part One.

Something unusual happened at the July 27th council meeting.

Instead of the usual array of empty seats, the council chamber was filled with city residents. Although their specific concerns varied, the residents addressed the same topic of vital concern: maintaining the high quality of residential life in our city.

I was glad the residents spoke up. There is a real disconnect between what at least one council member thinks is a top priority for our city---i.e., doing anything and everything to support, foster and expand businesses and business activity in the city, even into residential areas--- and what residents’ top priority really is--- preserving and fostering high quality residential neighborhoods and high quality residential life in our city.

While maintaining a diverse tax base is an important and worthy financial goal for our city, what distinguishes Highland Heights from surrounding communities---and what keeps our property values relatively high in these very challenging economic times---is the high quality of residential neighborhoods and life that the city has to offer.

Sacrifice those, and Highland Heights’ status as "One of the best places to live" will be lost.

Resident Concern # 1

A majority of the residents who attended the July 27th meeting came to protest a proposed settlement of a property partition lawsuit filed against the city by former Fire Chief Bencin.

 Bencin and a business partner own property along Miner Road and either own or have an option to purchase an adjacent piece of land in the Highland Woods subdivision. The dispute between Bencin and the residents concerns the number of building lots that can be created from that property. The city’s Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) decided that the minimum lot requirements that were in place when Highland Woods was developed  (rather than current minimum lot size requirements) applied to the property, which meant that it could be divided into six 100’ x 175’ building lots.

Bencin sued the city after the residents successfully challenged P&Z’s decision. That litigation has been pending for several years. While the city had some legal success early on, the judicial tide later turned against the city. As a result, Law Director Tim Paluf asked council to approve a settlement, immediately and on an emergency basis, to protect the city from additional legal exposure. Unfortunately---and to the immense unhappiness of the residents---the settlement gives Bencin what he wants: the right to build 6 houses.

Resident Linda Muskulka told council that she felt, “like someone is trying to pull a fast one on us” and that the “city should uphold the current zoning code in the subdivision of these parcels”.

Laura Kramer Kuns pointed out what she felt were procedural and legal errors in the subdivision process and told council that, instead of settling the case, they need, “to make Judge Gallagher (the trial court judge) do her job.”

Jacob Schott illustrated what the proposed settlement meant to him: “The speed limit on Miner Road is 35 miles per hour. (With the settlement) We’re going to grant this group the right to go 50.”

After listening to the residents and discussing the issue, council voted to approve the proposed settlement, as recommended by Law Director Tim Paluf.
Only Councilman Ed Hargate voted no. Apparently Hargate did not feel it necessary to share his thoughts or reasons with Paluf, his council peers, or with the public. He remained mum throughout the discussion and cast his “no” vote without stating on the record why he chose to disregard Law Director Tim Paluf’s legal advice.

To read more about the zoning decisions that resulted in the lawsuit:

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/planning_and_zoning/public%20hearing%20minutes/2008/06-09-08_public_hearing_minutes_PZ08012.pdf
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/building_and_zoning_appeals/2009/bza.min.081408.htm

Linda Muskulka (Melisa L. Muskulka)'s letter to the editor, following up on her comments to council:
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/08/highland_heights_should_examin.html

Sun Messenger's story on the residents' concerns:
http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/08/court_settlement_allows_six_ho.html
Status: Ongoing.
In a management letter, the city’s private auditor recommended that the city adopt several new laws and policies.
Law Director Tim Paluf drafted an ordinance based on Mayor Coleman’s proposed city-owned vehicle policy. A first reading of that ordinance took place at the July 27th council meeting. The ordinance was then referred to council's Legislative and Finance Committee for review.
Finance Director Anthony Ianiro reported that he is still working on an ethics/conflict of interest policy and disclosure form and a computer use policy. He did not commit to a deadline for finishing that work.

Item Four: Investigation of Summer Swim Team Coach
Status: Uncertain

I recently learned from a city summer worker’s parent about a situation involving a male Highland Heights summer swim team coach, who allegedly engaged in inappropriate communication with at least one young teenage female swim team member.

Neither Recreation Director David Ianiro nor Police Chief Cook mentioned the matter when giving their reports to council at the July 27th council meeting. Although I don't know for sure, I assume that this matter is currently being investigated.

The coach at issue is not a resident of our city and apparently never participated in the city's summer swim program. It is unclear how he came to the city's attention and whether he received preferential treatment over a HHts resident and/or a HHts swim team alum.

The situation raises a global question about how summer rec workers are hired---what hiring processes are used and what screening takes place (if any) before job offers are made?I keep wondering---shouldn’t HHts students and residents have first dibs on HHts summer jobs?
Apparently that’s not how it works, at least under the current administration.



Watch for my next post: Part Two: Report on the July 27th Council Meeting.

The end.

Resident Concern # 2

David Saltenis, a resident and Highland Heights fire-fighter, shared a different quality of residential life concern with council. He reported on a simmering and increasingly volatile dispute with one of his neighbors.

While council is not really in a position to fix such matters (Council President Scott Mills asked Police Chief Cook and Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder to look into the situation), the fact that Mr. Saltenis came to the meeting to discuss the situation with council demonstrated just how important living in a high quality residential neighborhood is to Mr. Saltenis---as it is to most Highland Heights residents.

City Watch

Item One. Posting of 2008 Structural Engineer’s report on City’s Website
Status: Resolved

I am happy to report that a full copy of the structural engineer's 2008 report on the Old Church Building has finally been posted online, on the city’s homepage.

http://www.highlandhts.com/


Item Two. Old Church Building
Status: Bid specs for demolition of the Old Church Building will be presented to council at an August 17th Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting.

Council approved putting the demolition work out to bid several months ago.
City Engineer Steve Hovanscek later explained that he couldn’t prepare the bid specifications before council left for its regular August recess because of delays resulting from Mayor Coleman's failure to promptly sign the contract for a required, pre-bid asbestos evaluation of the building. Hovanscek told council this week that the bid specs would be ready by mid-august.
Council President Scott Mills scheduled a mid-recess COW meeting, to give council the opportunity to review the bid specifications before the public bidding process begins.

Item Three: Auditor’s recommendations for new city policies