ALL THE MAYOR'S MEN

Residents should be outraged at the result of last Monday’s Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) vote on the disputed over-sized Rutland Drive deck.
I know I am.
I’m outraged.....but not surprised.
Like other residents I have to wonder:

Was it a reasoned decision…or a political one?

ALL THE MAYOR'S MEN

Mayor Scott Coleman is in position to exert a tremendous amount of power and influence over P&Z because he appoints almost every P&Z member.
In fact, 3 of the 4 individuals making the decision last Monday night (former Park & Rec Commissioner Tony Valentino, Chair Vince Adamus and Bill Urban) are mayoral appointees.

The exception is Councilman Bob Mastrangelo.
He’s Council’s lone appointee.

Mastrangelo is P&Z’s most experienced member, having served as P&Z Chairman for many years before being elected to Council.

Residents are completely frozen out.
They have no say over who makes city zoning decisions.

A RECAP OF THE ISSUE

Last May, Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder issued an official tear-down letter, giving Rutland Drive residents (RDR) 30 days to remove a deck installed next to an above-ground pool, a mere 11 feet from the rear property line.
The city’s zoning code imposes a 40 foot setback on decks.

Grafelder’s letter indicates that the RDR agreed to cooperate and comply.

That should have been the end of it.

Instead it was only the beginning.

Enter Mayor Scott Coleman and Law Director Tim Paluf...

The pool owners didn't file an official appeal. Instead, they appealed to the mayor.

In a private meeting, Paluf apparently decided that because it was built next to a pool, the city’s 10 foot pool setback requirement applied to the deck.
Although nothing in the city’s Charter gives him the authority to do so, Paluf---backed up by Mayor Coleman---apparently took it upon himself to overrule Grabfelder.

Last Monday the Mayor's Men on P&Z dutifully fell in line.

They rejected an appeal filed by surrounding neighbors, challenging the deck.

The lone dissent was Bob Mastrangelo.

THE CITY’S DECK PERMITTING PROCESS

• By law, residents must apply for, and receive, a permit before beginning construction of a deck.

• A detailed drawing showing the location, dimensions and appearance of the proposed deck must be submitted with the permit application.

• The permit allows for construction of a deck only as shown in the approved drawing. 

• Any significant changes in, or departures from, the approved drawing must be submitted to, and approved, by the Building Department.

• Residents may be required to submit an amended permit application to reflect those changes.

• The city requires 2 inspections.

• The first occurs early in the process, before any significant construction has begun, when the post holes are dug.

•  A final inspection occurs once construction is complete.

• The city can issue stop construction orders if the deck doesn’t conform to the permit and/or comply with city law.

SOME FACTS FROM THE HEARING:
THE RUTLAND DRIVE DECK

1. In 2013, the Rutland Drive residents (RDR) applied for, and received a permit, allowing them to install an above-ground pool on their property.
2. A roughly sketched (and not officially stamped) drawing submitted with the pool permit application shows a small deck platform next to the pool, but the RDR did not apply for a permit to build a deck, the pool itself didn’t come with a deck, and the city didn’t approve installation of a deck at that time.
3. The Pool Permit, issued on 7/3/2013, expired six months later. The pool was installed during this time.
4.  According to the male RDR, they began constructing a deck next to the pool almost a year later, on “May 5^th or 6^th” 2014.
5. The RDR didn’t apply for, or receive, a permit before beginning construction of the deck.
6. The RDR applied for a permit on May 8, 2014 after a city building inspector was sent to investigate.
7. The construction of the deck was well underway by that time. The post holes had already been dug and cemented---without city inspection---before the permit application was submitted.
8. The city required the RDR to submit a detailed drawing of the deck as part of the permit process. A stamped copy of the approved drawing was placed in the file.
9. The approved drawing shows a 12’ by 36’ deck.
10. On May 9^th the city issued a permit for a deck to be built “in accordance with the (approved) plans” on file with the city.  
11. Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder issued a tear down letter on May 14^th, after determining that the deck, in fact, violated the city’s zoning code.
12.  The tear-down letter has never been officially rescinded, and the RDR never filed an official appeal as provided for by city law. The time for filing an appeal has expired.
13.  In fact, the RDR built a significantly larger deck than what was permitted and approved by the city.
14. Grabfelder measured the deck. Its dimensions are 16’3” x  46’3’’---- more than 70% larger than the deck shown in the approved drawing submitted by the RDR . 
15. When asked about the size discrepancy, the male RDR offered this explanation: “The people who constructed the deck suggested it would be nice to put an accent around it. That added an additional 1 foot all around…” 
16.  The explanation covers only a small portion of the non-permitted additional square footage added by RDR to the deck. 
17.  The RDR never sought permission to enlarge the deck, they did not amend their permit application to reflect the substantial size change, nor did they notify the city of that change.

WHICH BRINGS US TO MONDAY NIGHT…

VINCE ADAMUS’S SURPRISE ANNOUNCEMENT
P&Z Chair Vince Adamus began the public hearing by making a surprise announcement.

He decided to straight-jacket the public hearing right from the get-go.

Out of the blue, Adamus announced that he was going to impose a 4 minute, per person, speaking time limit.
Adamus stated that he would “keep time” and issue warnings at the 3 minute mark.

I’ve attended quite a few P&Z public hearings and I’ve never heard of such a thing.

The restriction seemed particularly inappropriate when applied to the attorneys who had been hired to present their clients’ case to P&Z.

The RDR’s attorney, in fact, pushed back, informing Adamus that Law Director Tim Paluf told him that there were no time restrictions and he could take whatever time he needed.
(Do you suppose Paluf communicated the same information to the neighbors’ attorney? )

That argument was not entirely successful.
Although he seemed to have more speaking time than everone else, Adamus still cut the RDR’s attorney off before he completed his presentation.

While the P&Z Chair certainly has the right to (and should) exercise control over public hearings to eliminate inappropriate comments and to minimize irrelevant discussion and unnecessary repetition....

Adamus’s action raises significant, troubling due process concerns.

The whole purpose of a P&Z public hearing is to develop a full and complete factual record.
That can only happen if both sides are allowed to be fully heard.

Instead, attendees found themselves pressured to speed through---or worse cut ---their remarks to meet Adamus’ arbitrary time limit.

If there were too many items on the agenda----the excuse given by Adamus for the time restriction---that was P&Z’s fault.
P&Z controls its own agenda.
Adamus could have rescheduled other matters or---GASP!---held an extra P&Z meeting.
Instead he chose to limit the deck hearing by muzzling the speakers.

All the Mayor's Men…

WAS IT A REAL HEARING.... OR A FOREGONE CONCLUSION?
I have to wonder whether the Mayor's Men on P&Z approached the hearing with open minds and with a clear understanding of their roles.
I have to wonder that given the fact that I heard "compromise" pushed repeatedly, but only at the neighbors.

After the neighbors' attorney explained that they were simply asking P&Z to uphold:

“…the ordinances that are on the books that allow us to live in harmony with each other…”

 Billl Urban responded:

 "As a proud resident of this city this is embarrassing. I don’t know who is right or who is wrong. Isn’t there a way to talk this out?”

Urban followed up a little later, asking one of the neighbors:

“Is there something that could be done that would reconcile the differences here?”

I didn't hear Urban pose either of those questions to the RDR.

In any case, the permit appeal hearing was not the appropriate forum---and quite a bit too late in the process---to push the neighbors to "compromise" (i.e. give up fighting the deck).

The persons in the best position to broker a compromise were the people most involved at the start of this mess:

Mayor Scott Coleman and Law Director Tim Paluf.

They were the ones who might have negotiated a peaceful resolution.
Instead they threw fuel on the fire and left the neighbors with no choice but to appeal the deck permit.

With all his talk of "compromise" it seemed that Urban was intent making the neighbors look like the bad guys---

even though, in all of this, the neighbors are the only truly innocent parties.

All the Mayor's Men...

WHO CARES ABOUT THE NEIGBORS’ RIGHTS…RIGHT?

There was a lot of musing and speculation by P&Z members during their pre-vote discussion.
Bob Mastrangelo suggested calling the neighbors back for further questioning and discussion.
He pointed out that asking question of applicants during P&Z deliberations was par for the course and regular procedure.
Adamus would have none of it. He absolutely refused, saying:

“I’m not interested in extending this…I’m not going to do that.”

Adamus tried to move at rapid speed to other business once the deck vote was taken.

(Final tally: Mayor’s Men all voted to uphold the deck permit, allowing the deck to stay. Councilman Bob Mastrangelo voted no.)

Once again, Mastrangelo spoke up:

“We need to poll the members (i.e. have the Mayor's Men state, on the record, their reasons for upholding the deck permit) and to tell them  (the losing neighbors) what their options are."

P&Z Chair Adamus denied that P&Z had to do either of those things. He then added:

“ I’m not in any position to tell them their rights.”

Both the polling of members and advising of appeal rights eventually took place—after Law Director Tim Paluf confirmed that Mastrangelo was correct.
Both were proper post-vote procedures.

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?
WHICH ONE IS TELLING THE TRUTH?

During his unsworn testimony, the male RDR repeatedly denied that he had ever agreed to tear down his over-sized deck.
Referring to the statement in Building Commission Dale Gradfelder’s official tear down letter,  the RDR’s attorney asked:

“Did you ever agree to remove the deck? “

The male RDR replied:

“No I never did agree to take it down.”

Disturbed by that testimony, Mastrangelo asked Grabfelder to respond.
Mastrangelo said:

“I’ve known Dale Grabfelder for a long time.
I can’t believe he’d put something in a letter that didn’t happen.”

Grabfelder then stated, categorically, on the record:

“The letter I wrote is exactly the conversation I had with (the male RDR) in my office.

THE RDR POSITION AT THE HEARING

The RDR hired a bull-dog (my estimation) litigator from P&Z Commissioner Rob Warner’s firm to represent them---thereby disqualifying Warner from voting on the deck issue.

The attorney explained:

“Our position is simple.
A deck incidental to a pool is permitted to be up to 10 feet from the property line.
Although I understand there is a 40 foot setback (for decks), that’s not how this deck is being used…..
It is in full compliance with the permit…
That’s not what this is about…
When I grew up, playing outside and being with family was important.
Other people are aggravated at that. They can’s see the big picture..
This was built for my client’s family and for his grandchildren.

There has been a merciless attack on my clients.”

 Later the attorney reiterated:

“Everything with the deck was done correctly.”

THE NEIGHBORS’ POSITION AT THE HEARING

The neighbors’ attorney told P&Z:

“What I really want you folks to understand, what we are asking you to do, is it to uphold the city zoning ordinances as written.
You know they are a reflection of the public policy of this community. They shouldn’t be disregarded wily nilly.
Permission (to build the deck) should have been done in the first place.

We are asking to have the deck removed and to go back to the way things should have been done to begin with….

This is not a deck that was purchased with the pool. It’s a custom deck…

It was built without a permit, without a license and its 74% larger than the drawing they gave to city after the deck was built.

(My clients are) trying to enjoy their yards in a way that works with their neighbors.

This deck is large, this deck is tall, this deck is intrusive. “

Neighbor Karen Clark had this to say about the RDR attorney’s claim that the whole brouhaha was nothing more than a vicious personal attack on his clients:

The issue that we are dealing with today is NOT meant to be personal.
We feel bad that the relationships between neighbors has been compromised.
The owners of the deck deserve to enjoy their yard just as much as we do.
But no one family's enjoyment should be at the expense of the adjoining neighbors.
Because the deck sits out of ordinance, by the rear property line, it becomes very visible.
The visibility is amplified by it's height and the square footage..
(The deck) is far MORE visible to us then (it is to) them.
 If the deck is reconstructed in an area that is within ordinance, even though it would be CLOSER to our home, we would see far LESS of it because we would be seeing it from an angle.
It could possibly be more convenient for them.
They could walk out the back door of their home and onto their patio. They could then walk right up the steps to the deck and jump into the pool.
Problem could be solved.
If they were to do this they would be seeing more of their deck from their windows......but their neighbors would be seeing less of it.

I don't think this should bother them, since it is after all, their deck, not ours. “

Clark then added a very prescient warning:

If you allow the deck, which was originally built WITHOUT a permit and is out of ordinance, you are setting a precedence for all Highland Heights residen(ts).

 No need to get a permit ahead of time.
You can always get one later and pay no consequences. “

A LACK OF COMMON SENSE (REDUX)

I speculated in a prior blog that the amount the RDR had already spent on legal fees probably exceeded the cost of moving the disputed deck.

After receiving the bill for Monday’s hearing, that undoubtedly will be the case.

Commonsense and neighborliness would seem to weigh in favor of moving the deck.
But the RDR refuse.

Why?
Prior to last Monday’s hearing I would have guessed that their answer was that they’re not going to move their oversized deck because they don’t want to.

After last Monday’s hearing---thanks to the Mayor's Men---I’m guessing that their answer would be that they’re not going to move their oversized deck because they don’t have to..

They don’t have to….at least for now.

Stay tuned for further developments.....

close up of drawing submitted by RDR, part of approved deck permit
Approved deck dimensions: 12' x 36'

final as-built dimensions of deck

RUTLAND DECK HEARING, WOODLAND PRESERVE AND OTHER NEWS

RUTLAND DECK HEARING

Although Council is still enjoying its August recess, the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) gets back to work on Monday.
Among other items of business is a previously postponed public hearing on a huge deck that was recently erected next to a pre-existing Rutland Drive above-ground pool.

Neighbors have challenged the deck’s legality on several grounds, including that its placement violates the city’s zoning laws.
The towering deck sits a mere 11 feet (rather than the required 40 feet) away from pool owners’ rear property line.

I have to say I’m a little confused as to why there even needs to be a public hearing on the issue.

Last May, Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder issued an official tear down letter, directing that the deck be removed.
The letter acknowledges that the pool owners agreed to comply...until, apparently, they didn't.
That's when Mayor Scott Coleman and Law Director Tim Paluf got involved.

Don't get me started...

To my knowledge, the city has never rescinded Grabfelder's tear down letter----and the pool owners never appealed that order.
The time for filing an appeal expired a long time ago.

Legally that means that Grabfelder's order is both final and enforceable.
Given that fact, it seems to me that P&Z's job is pretty simple and clear cut.

All P&Z has to (and can) do is enforce the Building Commissioner's official tear down order.

There is a lot of speculation as to what will happen on Monday night.

• Will the P&Z member who failed to appear at the originally-scheduled public hearing be in attendance.... or will he be MIA once again?

• Will there be a Highland Heights police presence like last time, and who were they watching anyway...certainly not the thoughtful and well-mannered residents challenging the deck ?

The meeting, which is opened to the public, begins at 8 pm on August 25th in the City Hall Council Chamber.

IT’S OFFICIAL: BISHOP ROAD ACREAGE
IS AREA’S NEWEST WOODLAND PRESERVE
The latest Cuyahoga County Soil and Conservation District newsletter announces:

“Land on Euclid Creek Tributaries Protected in Highland Heights”

It’s now official.
The non-profit West Creek Conservancy has taken title to 12 acres of pristine woodland, located between Hawthorne Drive and Wilson Mills Road, on Bishop Road.

Our local Friends of Euclid Creek group (P.O. Box 21384, South Euclid Ohio 44121) is soliciting donations, to help pay for cleanup, fencing, planting and maintenance costs.  

Announcement from Soil &Conservation District Newsletter

THE SUN MESSENGER: HOW FAR IT HAS FALLEN
It’s routine for newspaper reporters to get story ideas from press releases and newsletters.

However, they aren’t supposed to pass off such items as their own work.

They are supposed to do some original writing and/or reporting, in order to turn what someone else has written into their own work.
At a minimum journalists should at least publicly attribute the source when publishing someone else's writing under their own name.
What’s it called if a journalist doesn’t do either of those things?  

Some might call it laziness, but the journalist world calls it plagiarism.

My eyebrows got raised when I read Andrew Attina’s “Messen’ Around” column, published in the Sun Messenger this week.

The column's first piece appeared to be a reproduction of the County Soil and Conservation District newsletter article announcing the new Highland Heights woodland preserve, described above.

Attina condensed the newsletter article and changed around a couple of word and phrases, but there doesn’t appear to be any significant amount of original writing or reporting.
That being said.... did Attina at least attribute the source for his piece... did he let readers know where he got---almost word-for-word---most of the text?
No, he did not.

Boy, I sure miss the old Sun Messenger.
How far that once credible and useful community paper has sunk.

Adrew Attina's piece

TONE DEAF OR WILLINGLY OBLIVIOUS?
WHY NOT BE PART OF THE COUNTY “READY NOTIFY” PROGRAM?

Councilman Ed Hargate tried for several months to get Council to discuss, and hopefully consider joining, Cuyahoga County’s “Ready Notify” program, a system that provides alerts and information to county residents via phone, text messages, email and the like.

Council President Cathy Muprhy put Hargate off the first time he tried to add it to the agenda for an upcoming Committee of the Whole meeting.
Murphy told Hargate that she wanted Mayor Scott Coleman to participate in the discussion and the mayor was going to be absent.

He wasn’t. The mayor attended that meeting.

Council finally discussed the program on July 29^th.
Hargate explained the program and pointed out that the city could use it for free.

“It expands the emergency notification opportunity that the city can use at no cost…
I think it’s a good program and a good service.
I’d like to request that the city participate in the program.”

Police Chief Jim Cook weighed in on the discussion at Murphy’s invitation.
Cook said that he hadn’t looked at the county’s program.
He explained, however, that the city was currently under contract with the fee-based “Code Red” service, which had access to databases which allowed for effective and efficient emergency notification to Highland Heights residents.

When the issue of redundancy came up, Hargate opined,

"They (the two programs) are compatible.
Ready Notify gives us broader access…I think we should have both systems. Residents can have access to a whole lot more information than just with Code Red."

That seemed persuasive to Cook, Fire Chief Bill Turner and Mayor Scott Coleman, all of whom acknowledged that it wasn't an “either/or” decision.
The mayor said:

"I am suggesting not to do this (Ready Notify) as our primary local carrier. Perhaps when the Code Red contract comes up we can look at whether we can use it as our primary carrier.
But it’s no cost for us to use it.”

It wasn’t clear to me whether she didn’t hear what was being said or whether she simply chose not to listen---but Murphy clearly wasn’t on board.
Her suggested action plan was to take no action other than “educating” residents about the county program and having Law Director Tim Paluf and Council's Safety Service Committee look at the program at their leisure-----like maybe next year.
She announced:

"We are in agreement that we will work on educating individuals (about the Ready Notify program) and look at this again when the Code Red contract comes up…
We can have the Safety Service Committee revisit it and bring more clarity to the situation.”

I was sitting in the same room and heard all of the discussion.  

As far as I was concerned, Murphy’s claimed “agreement” didn't reflect (at all) the consensus of the group sitting around the Council table with her.

Hargate, frustrated and disgusted, gave up. He told Murphy :

“No you are missing the point…
I don’t know what clarity you need….but do what you want.”