CONTINUING INJUSTICE. POOL DECK DISPUTE ROUND TWO

THE POOL DECK APPEALS HEARING:
INJUSTICE (AGAIN) PREVAILS….BUT JUST BARELY

There was a smaller audience and a full 5 member panel at Wednesday night’s pool deck appeal hearing, but it otherwise proceeded like the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing that preceded it.

Once again the pool owners had a large contingent (13 by my count).
Once again they behaved like spectators at a sporting event----cheering and clapping loudly during the hearing.
At least they didn’t pound their seats.

Once again there was a police presence.

The officer on duty was seen glad-handing the pool owner group before the hearing.

How cozy.

And once again the hearing panel split.

This time the vote was 3 to 2 to uphold the deck permit.

Those voting to uphold the permit: former Councilman Frank Legan, John Hollis and Tom Hawkins.
The vote meant:

Close, but no cigar, for the neighbors living next to the gigantic, towering deck.

THE SAD (AND EMBARASSING) CHRONOLOGY

The neighbors began by presenting the sad and shameful chronology of the deck.

The chronology alone seemed quite persuasive, at least as far as the two dissenting hearing appeal board members were concerned.

In casting his “No” vote at the end of the hearing, David Corrado commented:

“I think at the end of the day, if we were to look at the big picture, if we didn’t follow the rules society would crumble.
I think he (the pool owner) should comply with the code requirements.”

Amen to that.

It’s a shame more of his compadres didn’t agree.

So what is the sad chronology here?

According to neighbor Karen Clark:

1. The pool owners successfully applied for a pool permit in July 2013.

The only thing permitted by the city was installation of an above ground pool.
The pool owners installed a pool shortly after the permit was issued.
They used it---apparently without difficulty---- the rest of the summer.

Fast-forward to 2014.

2. The neighbors heard banging and construction noises coming from the pool owners’ yard one Friday afternoon in early May.

By the time a city building inspector arrived the following Monday, the deck was at least 80% complete according to Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder.

The inspector quickly determined that the pool owners never applied for a permit.

No matter, according to 3 appeals board members.

3.  The pool owners were allowed to submit an after-the-fact deck permit application.

The city issued the deck permit without conducting required inspections.

In fact Grabfelder admitted that as of the night of the appeal hearing the deck---which has electrical lighting----has never been inspected by the city.

No matter, according to 3 appeals board members.

4. As a matter of public safety, the city requires all contractors working in the city to register and pay a registration fee before performing any work in the city (Ordinance 1313.01, 1313.04).

Although he admitted during the hearing that he had hired an “Amish guy” to build the deck for him, the male pool owner listed “self” as the deck builder in his permit application----thereby bypassing the city’s contractor registration rules.

No matter, according to 3 appeals board members.

5. As part of his permit application, the male pool owner submitted a site plan and schematic drawing depicting the deck, listing its dimensions.

The permit specifically stated that it applied only to a deck as depicted in that drawing.

 According to Grabfelder (who measured it before the P&Z hearing), the pool owners’ completed deck is 74% larger than what the permit allows.

No matter, according to 3 appeals board members.

6. Four days after the permit was issued, Grabfelder issued a tear down letter, informing the pool owners that the deck violated the city’s 40 foot setback requirement for decks.

The pool owners didn’t appeal that letter, nor was it ever officially rescinded by the city.

No matter, according to 3 appeals board members.

Why upset the apple cart----right?

THE REAL QUESTION

The real question here is:

Who cares about Highland Heights' permitting and inspection requirements?

Apparently not many of the individuals charged with following and enforcing them.

WHY NO PERMIT?

When asked why the pool owners didn’t apply for a permit before constructing the deck (remember it was almost completed before the city even knew about the deck), the pool owners’ attorney said:

“It was an honest mistake.
They thought the permit for the pool included a deck.
When he (the male pool owner) submitted the (pool permit) application there was a drawing showing there was going to be a deck.”

The permit that the city issued in July 2013 blows that claim out of the water.

It clearly states that it is for a “Swimming Pool Above Ground” only.

The pool owners’ claimed confusion about the July 2013 permit simply doesn’t hold water.

NO ADVANCE PLANNING REQUIRED?

As neighbor Karen Clark quite logically pointed out at the appeals hearing, if the pool owners knew they wanted to install both a pool and a deck in the summer of 2013, they could easily have placed the structures to comply with both the city’s pool and deck setback requirements.

Instead they obviously chose to follow a different path.

POOL OWNERS: VILLIANS OR VICTIMS?

The pool owners seemed to work quite hard to portray themselves as victims of a neighborhood vendetta.

At both hearings they took umbrage at what they claimed was unfair and unfavorable online and print coverage.
They also pointed their finger at the neighbors, essentially accusing them of causing a merit-less controversy. 

They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The only true victims here---the only truly innocent parties in this whole mess---are the neighbors----who have to live with a gigantic,  over-built deck standing 11 feet from the rear property line.

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?  ROUND TWO

Four days after the deck permit was issued, Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder sent a letter to the pool owners, ordering them to tear down the deck because it violated the city’s 40 foot deck setback requirement.

In that May 13th letter, Grabfelder thanked the pool owners for voluntarily agreeing to take the deck down.

The male pool owner vehemently denied---at both the P&Z and appeal hearings---that he had ever agreed to tear down the deck.

Grabfelder just as emphatically insisted that the letter accurately reflected his conversation with the male pool owner.

The May 13th tear down letter became final and enforceable a couple weeks after it was issued, once the period for appealing it expired.

Presumably, then, the deck permit is actually irrelevant.

That presents a thorny legal problem for the pool owners.

When asked whether he had disputed anything in the tear down letter, the male pool owner told the appeals board:

“No I did not.
(I figured) I didn’t agree with it so why would I have gotten it.”

The pool owners’ attorney came forth with a different explanation:

"Within a few days (of receiving the tear down letter) my clients received calls from the law director and building commissioner saying they got it resolved, telling them to go ahead. Have a nice summer.”

When confronted with that version of events Law Director Tim Paluf told the appeals board that he had never called the pool owners.  
They had called him….quite a few times.

And while Paluf acknowledged issuing a written legal opinion discussing the deck’s legality (a letter that was never shared with the neighbors) he told the appeals board:

His opinion letter was dated June 19^th

It was issued more than a month after the tear down letter was issued-- well after the time for appealing the tear down letter expired.
So, once again, the pool owner’s version of reality radically conflicts with that of city officials.

Given all the history here, who do you believe?

THE NEXT ROUND

The next round---if it comes---will be in the courts.

Although not cheap, that’s not the worst next step.

It’s time to take this dispute out of the realm of local politics and have a judge--- someone who presumably understands the law and knows how to engage in proper statutory interpretation----weigh in on the matter.

The way this has been handled by city officials is an absolute scandal

What is most unforgivable in my book is that Mayor Scott Coleman and Law Director Tim Paluf didn’t do the right thing when the pool owners first contacted them, seeking political help dealing with Grabfelder’s tear down letter.

They didn’t do what they should have done: tell the pool owners to file an appeal (like everyone else) so the matter could be handled through proper legal channels.

Often when politics gets involved, it costs the city---and city taxpayers---a lot of money.

Such is the case here.

Shame, shame on all of the elected and appointed city officials who have contributed to this mess.

 GRINDBURGER TO OPEN SOON

The sign is up, the kitchen looks to be in and there was a meeting with staff on Friday night.

It can’t be long until the city’s newest bar/restaurant opens.

Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder told Council that Grindburger is scheduled to open on October 27^th.

While the patio won’t be operational until 2015, the raised patio pad is in.

Things are definitely looking up in that corner of the city.

WILL THAT BE A BURRITO OR A BOWL?

Although representatives for developer Lance Osborne have previously been coy about tenants for the soon-to-be redeveloped BP gas station at the corner of Wilson Mills and Alpha Drive, the cat is now out of the bag.

October 13 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting agenda tells the tale:

A Chipotle and a mattress store

I imagine that Qdoba--- just a few doors down in Osborne’s Shoppes at Alpha Place---is none too pleased, but then again I suspect customers tend to be loyal to one burrito palace or the other.

For me it's Chipotle all the way....

CITY SCORES ISSUE 1 GRANT AND NO-INTEREST LOAN
MINER ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT OFFICIALLY A “GO”

Mayor Scott Coleman seemed mighty pleased last Tuesday given the city’s success in obtaining financing for the Miner Road reconstruction project.

While the city didn’t end up getting the full loan amount it had sought, it will receive a $100,000 outright grant and a $686,800 no-interest, 20 year loan.

A no interest loan! How cool is that?

Taxpayers will pay for this much needed infrastructure work over time, without any interest costs added to the bill.

DOES THE CITY REALLY NEED AN INSURANCE CONSULTANT?

The hot button topic at last Tuesday’s Committee of the Whole meeting was Finance Director Joe Filippo’s request for a contract, continuing Fedeli Health Services’ role as the city’s health insurance consultant.

Although the city’s health insurance plan isn’t changing, Filippo explained:

“I do not have expertise in Affordable Care Act (ACA).
 Once I am comfortable with it we may not need them.

They will talk about our wellness program and other requirements of the ACA.”

Filippo admitted he didn’t think about other alternatives:

“I have a comfort feeling with them.
I’ve been dealing with them.
I wanted to stay with who I knew and trusted.”

The primary problem, as far as Council was concerned, seemed to be Fedeli’s billing practices.
Apparently Fedeli doesn’t submit detailed statements showing the work it performs, how long the work takes, and who did the work.

You know, normal information that most consultants provide to justify their bills.

Filippo didn’t address why, in his professional opinion, refusing to provide a detailed statement of services should be acceptable to the city.
His only explanation was:

“They don’t work that way.”

That apparently was good enough for Filippo.
Also of concern to Council President Cathy Murphy was a clause calling for automatic renewal of the consulting contract.

Murphy insisted that the city be able to reassess its options in the future…which meant the clause had to go.

Despite their reservations, it sounded like Council members are intending to honor Filippo’s request and will approve a revised consulting contract.

LAUNCH OF CITY’S NEW WOODLAND PRESERVE

A nice crowd showed up at the October 11 volunteer event celebrating the launch of the new Bishop Road woodland preserve.

It was an event 20 years in the making.

Residents and supporters hauled trash (lots of trash) and planted woodland-appropriate, deer-resistant plants in several areas of the 12 acre parcel.

Shovels at the ready

An old water well on the property

Volunteers hard at work planting deer resistant plants

One of the 3 Euclid Creek system streams that run through the property

The city contributed $2,000 towards the purchase of the property----a small sum, but helpful in closing the gap: although a state grant paid for most of it, the grant didn’t cover the property’s full purchase price.

So thank you Highland Heights taxpayers!

And thanks, too, to the Friends of Euclid Creek and Claire Posius of the Cuyahoga County Soil and Conservation District, who worked tirelessly pursuing a grant to preserve this important and environmentally sensitive area.

POOL DECK: ROUND 2.

The adjoining neighbors’ appeal of the P&Z decision upholding the permit for the gigantic Rutland Road deck erected next to an above-ground pool will be heard this Wednesday.
7:30 pm. City Hall Council Chambers.