Although Council was able to take a month-long recess, the
Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) wasn’t so lucky. Commission members
remained hard at work in August.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEWS
There was more positive economic development news at the
August 27th P&Z meeting.
The owner of Security Self Storage on Bishop Road discussed plans to add an additional 8,800 square foot storage unit, and the owner of Kemper House, which specializes in providing care to dementia/Alzheimer’s patients, announced plans to open a new residential care facility in Aberdeen Office Park. The facility would serve 82 residents and create 60-70 full & part-time jobs.
Fire Chief Bill Turner---not a usual attendee---came to the P&Z
meeting to share several concerns about the Kemper House plans.
Turner wanted to ensure that the facility had sufficient access drives for emergency vehicles. He also worried about the demands that the facility might place on the emergency services provided by his department:
Turner wanted to ensure that the facility had sufficient access drives for emergency vehicles. He also worried about the demands that the facility might place on the emergency services provided by his department:
“We are a small dept. We are taxed. I am concerned about what impact it (Kemper House) will have on the rest of the community.”
Kemper House’s response was both realistic and reassuring:
“Our population is different (than the assisted living facility on Bishop Road, which Turner indicated has added to the city’s emergency services workload). They (our residents) can’t dial 911. They don’t have phones in their room. We are not a skilled nursing facility…The average age of our residents is 86. They have DNRs (do not resuscitate orders).”
The owner of Kemper House told P&Z:
“Our market study showed a huge need for residential dementia care in this area. We like to think we can be a huge resource for the community.”
RESIDENTS ASK FOR VARIANCES FROM THE WORK-RELATED VEHICLES
PARKING ORDINANCE.
In 2004, Highland Heights Council enacted an Ordinance 1141.08, which restricts the parking of commercial and work vehicles in
residential areas. The ordinance has teeth---violations constitute a “minor
misdemeanor” enforceable in court, and residents face a $100 fine for “each day or fraction thereof, during which noncompliance
or a violation continues…”
The ordinance differentiates between commercial vehicles based on their weight.
There are no additional requirements placed on the owners of very large (one ton and over) commercial vehicles, but the ordinance requires owners of vehicles under 1 ton to cover up all “lettering, signage or other commercial indicia…in a manner acceptable to the Building Department” and to remove all “equipment, tools, ladders and similar items… from the vehicle” each night.
The ordinance differentiates between commercial vehicles based on their weight.
There are no additional requirements placed on the owners of very large (one ton and over) commercial vehicles, but the ordinance requires owners of vehicles under 1 ton to cover up all “lettering, signage or other commercial indicia…in a manner acceptable to the Building Department” and to remove all “equipment, tools, ladders and similar items… from the vehicle” each night.
I find the ordinance troubling from a legal standpoint.
Any ordinance that results in prosecution and the imposition of hefty penalties should notify residents in a clear and nondiscretionary manner just what the city expects them to do to stay out of trouble.
Any ordinance that results in prosecution and the imposition of hefty penalties should notify residents in a clear and nondiscretionary manner just what the city expects them to do to stay out of trouble.
And while Council is certainly allowed to delegate
responsibility to the Building Commissioner to enforce the ordinance, it should
provide clear parameters that limit and define the exercise of that authority, so
that everyone---residents, Council and the Commissioner alike---know, upfront,
just what those limits are.
Stating that residents must act “in a manner acceptable to
the Building Department” just doesn’t cut it in my book.
Also troubling is the fact that the ordinance ---which presumably
was enacted to address the aesthetic challenges presented by commercial
vehicles parked in residential driveways----appears to give a total pass to larger (1
ton+) commercial vehicles; it seemingly doesn't require owners of those vehicles to cover
up commercial signs and lettering or remove exterior equipment. Only owners of
smaller commercial vehicles are required to do that. The ordinance doesn’t
provide any rationale or reason for that discriminatory treatment.
There’s another basic problem with the ordinance, though.
The reality is that times have changed and more residents drive business-related vehicles now than 20 years ago.
The reality is that times have changed and more residents drive business-related vehicles now than 20 years ago.
That reality is reflected in the growing number of residents, who are coming to P&Z asking
for “variances” from (i.e. to be legally relieved from complying with) the
parking ordinance.
Three such individuals were listed on P&Z’s August 27th
agenda.
One resident explained,
One resident explained,
“I am on 24/7 call. I have to have my (commercial) vehicle at my residence to keep my job….I just want to work and go home, that’s it.“
Another resident told P&Z:
"I operate a business out of my home. I have a ½ ton van with ladders and signage. I moved here in June 1981. No one said anything until now. I have had the same type of vehicle since that time. My vehicle will not fit into the garage. It is not financially feasible for me to alter the garage…I am on 24 hour call. I leave at 5:30 am. Putting up ladders (on top of the van) at 5:15am would be noisy and a nuisance…To my knowledge there have been no complaints about my vehicle since I moved in. It hasn’t caused a change to the environment. It does not impede fire or safety.”
In a dramatic illustration of just how ambiguous and confusing
the ordinance really is---even to P&Z---the commission members decided to
postpone taking any action on the residents’ variance requests. They decided,
instead, to ask Council for clarification regarding the ordinance’s intent and language.
Council’s representative to P&Z, Bob Mastrangelo, seemed
to sum up P&Z’s concerns:
“There should be reason to compromise here. I understand that people do not want big commercial vehicles, but there should be way to accommodate people who need vehicles for work as well. “
Residents can only hope that Council takes a second, hard look
at the ordinance---and does so quickly. According to Building Commissioner Dale
Grabfelder, 4 residents are currently awaiting court hearings after the city filed
misdemeanor complaints against them for violating the ordinance.
These are excerpts from Ordinance 111.08:
No person shall keep, park, store… overnight any commercial vehicle or truck…in a U-1, U-2, U-3 (residential) use district, except... not more than one commercial vehicle or one truck, not exceeding one ton… may be parked in a covered and closed garage or otherwise entirely out of sight of any adjacent property … provided the trucks or commercial vehicles are used solely by the owner(s) or occupant(s) of the premises. 1141.08(a)(6).
Commercial vehicles shall.. include any pick up truck with a rated capacity of one ton or less, van, or sport utility vehicle that is used for commercial, business, or manufacturing purposes and bears any one or more of the following: mounted equipment, signs, racks carrying equipment, tools, ladders, lettering, building material and/or similar items. …(Such) vehicles… may be parked in a U-1, U-2, or U-3 use district …if the owner or occupant covers the lettering, signage or other commercial indicia in a manner acceptable to the Building Department and/or removes any and all equipment, tools, ladders and similar items from the vehicle while parking overnight. 1141.08(d)
DOES DEVELOPER LANCE OSBORNE REALLY THINK THE RULES DON’T APPLY TO
HIM?
At the beginning of the P&Z meeting, P&Z Chair Vince
Adamus explained the variance process, which begins by the filling out of a
variance request form.
In that form residents are asked to list both the zoning code at issue and the exact type of variance requested (i.e., “a 4 foot, 8” variance from the rear setback requirements found in Highland Heights Ordinance xxx.”).
P&Z uses the information in the form to have a detailed, preliminary discussion with the applicant. After having that discussion, P&Z will usually schedule a public hearing and notify nearby neighbors of the variance request. P&Z can’t vote on the variance request until after a public hearing is held.
In that form residents are asked to list both the zoning code at issue and the exact type of variance requested (i.e., “a 4 foot, 8” variance from the rear setback requirements found in Highland Heights Ordinance xxx.”).
P&Z uses the information in the form to have a detailed, preliminary discussion with the applicant. After having that discussion, P&Z will usually schedule a public hearing and notify nearby neighbors of the variance request. P&Z can’t vote on the variance request until after a public hearing is held.
Once again I have to wonder if developer Lance Osborne thinks
that the P&Z rules apply to everyone else.
Osborne appeared at the August 27th P&Z meeting to
discuss his variance requests for his proposed mega GetGo development on the
former Catalano’s grocery store property.
It appeared from the conversation that Osborne expected a public hearing to be held on his variance requests at the next (September 10th) P&Z meeting. He seemed to have that expectation even though he hadn’t fully filled out the required variance request forms.
Osborne spoke in vague generalities about the variances he was requesting without providing specifics to P&Z---either as to the applicable zoning code sections or as to the precise variances that he was seeking.
It appeared from the conversation that Osborne expected a public hearing to be held on his variance requests at the next (September 10th) P&Z meeting. He seemed to have that expectation even though he hadn’t fully filled out the required variance request forms.
Osborne spoke in vague generalities about the variances he was requesting without providing specifics to P&Z---either as to the applicable zoning code sections or as to the precise variances that he was seeking.
This time around Osborne didn’t get any special treatment
from P&Z---despite the best efforts of Law Director Tim Paluf.
Paluf-- -who rarely attends P&Z meetings---tried to help Osborne out, suggesting that a public hearing could still be held in on September 10th if Osborne provided the missing information to the P&Z clerk by August 31st, the deadline for mailing required hearing notices.
Paluf-- -who rarely attends P&Z meetings---tried to help Osborne out, suggesting that a public hearing could still be held in on September 10th if Osborne provided the missing information to the P&Z clerk by August 31st, the deadline for mailing required hearing notices.
That suggestion didn’t sit well with P&Z.
Chairman Vince Adamus pointed out:
“When we get one of these (a variance request form), all of the (variance) amounts are supposed to be filled in so we (P&Z) can ask questions."
Commission member Don McFadden explained,
“It is difficult to review (a variance request) when we don’t have the code sections.”
Even Councilman Bob Mastrangelo---a supporter of Osborne’s
mega GetGo project---was reluctant to forge ahead. He said,
“I think the (variance) application should be complete. Holding a public hearing next time doesn’t give us any time. It’s not like you (Osborne) are planning to break ground tomorrow. He (Osborne) can come back in two weeks with all the numbers in there…I’d back it (the public hearing) off. Typically when someone comes in, the form should be filled out. They should not plan to come back with more information. If we don’t have a (public) hearing next time we’re not holding up anything.”
Osborne is expected to return to P&Z---will fully
completed variance request forms---on September 10th.
$250 FOR A BRICK?
The Mayfield Schools are planning to celebrate the “inaugural
opening of Wildcat Park” (i.e. the renovated High School football stadium) beginning
at 9 am on September 8th.
The Wildcat Community Foundation, the group behind the
project, is still working to meet its multi-million dollar fundraising goal.
For a $250 donation, you can have your name or message
engraved on a paver installed at the football field entrance.
If you have a little more money to spare---say $200,000 or
more---you will be named a “Platinum Cat” and be recognized with a plaque on a
donor wall.
For more
information: www.MayfieldWildcatPark.com.
