Labor Day marks the end to Council’s month-long recess.
First up on the Sept. 8th Agenda: a Resolution of
Appreciation honoring the city’s long-time Building Inspector, George Wilson.
Wilson, who is retiring, worked for the city for 32 years.
WHAT’S THE “EMERGENCY”?
Also on the agenda for this week's Council meeting:
A first reading of an ordinance, proposed by Mayor Scott Coleman, allowing the city to sell or “dispos(e)” of “no longer needed” city property “by way of internet advertising and auction”.
A first reading of an ordinance, proposed by Mayor Scott Coleman, allowing the city to sell or “dispos(e)” of “no longer needed” city property “by way of internet advertising and auction”.
Two things caught my eye.
First, although proposed legislation is almost always listed
as being sponsored by “Mayor Scott. E. Coleman and Council as a Whole”…the
mayor appears to be standing alone on this one.
According to the Agenda posted online this morning, he’s the legislation’s sole sponsor.
Second, the mayor has designated this as “emergency” legislation---a designation which carries significant legal significance.
I have to ask:
According to the Agenda posted online this morning, he’s the legislation’s sole sponsor.
Second, the mayor has designated this as “emergency” legislation---a designation which carries significant legal significance.
I have to ask:
What’s the emergency?
Will the City run out of money if this property isn’t sold,
auctioned-off or “disposed” of ASAP?
Will the company sponsoring the internet auction site go under
if they don’t receive City hand-me-downs right away?
The Agenda doesn’t disclose what dire necessity has prompted the mayor to “declar(e) and emergency” in connection with this piece of proposed legislation.
Guess I'll have to go the Council meeting to find out.
The Agenda doesn’t disclose what dire necessity has prompted the mayor to “declar(e) and emergency” in connection with this piece of proposed legislation.
Guess I'll have to go the Council meeting to find out.
ONGOING LITIGATION:
THE MONSTER DECK
THE MONSTER DECK
The litigation arising from a huge Rutland Drive deck
installed 11 feet from a rear property line continues to move forward in the
common pleas court downtown.
The deck owners---who didn’t obtain a permit before beginning construction and who never appealed a May 14, 2014 Tear Down Order issued by Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder---have taken a “no compromise” stand with regard to the deck.
They took comfort when---even after acknowledging that proper permitting procedures were not followed---the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission and Zoning Appeals Boards (in split decisions) ruled in their favor…
The deck owners---who didn’t obtain a permit before beginning construction and who never appealed a May 14, 2014 Tear Down Order issued by Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder---have taken a “no compromise” stand with regard to the deck.
They took comfort when---even after acknowledging that proper permitting procedures were not followed---the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission and Zoning Appeals Boards (in split decisions) ruled in their favor…
the majority’s hilarious reasoning being that the city’s 40 foot setback for decks didn’t apply because the after-built, freestanding deck was placed next to an above ground pool.
The deck neighbors
filed the lawsuit, an obvious necessity to protect themselves and the only way, at this point, to get the City to enforce the permit and zoning laws as written….
laws which, in this case apparently, some city officials had no interest in respecting, obeying or enforcing
Zoning laws promote and preserve the high quality residential life that
Highland Heights residents expect and enjoy.
They are intended to protect every resident from overcrowded lots, noise pollution and the like.
They are intended to protect every resident from overcrowded lots, noise pollution and the like.
Rather than admitting the City’s mistake(s), Mayor Scott Coleman, with Council’s approval and consent, decided to fight the lawsuit.
Taxpayers are now footing the bill as the City defends itself against a
situation, entirely of its own creation.
And fight it has.
And fight it has.
The City (in conjunction with the deck owners and their
attorney) tried to have the case thrown out on the ground that proper
procedures weren’t followed.
The court said no
Next up: an attempt to limit the material the court
considers.
It turns out that although it was a hotly contested zoning issue and zoning hearings are digitally recorded via computer, the City didn’t file copies of the hearing recordings with the court.
Instead the record the City filed with the court included summary “Minutes”, prepared by a clerk and approved by the zoning bodies themselves.
There is some question, apparently, about whether the City even preserved the hearing recordings.
It turns out that although it was a hotly contested zoning issue and zoning hearings are digitally recorded via computer, the City didn’t file copies of the hearing recordings with the court.
Instead the record the City filed with the court included summary “Minutes”, prepared by a clerk and approved by the zoning bodies themselves.
There is some question, apparently, about whether the City even preserved the hearing recordings.
Something it should have done because---as shown by the fact that the City posted police officers at the doorway during the zoning hearings---the City was well aware that the dispute might lead to litigation.
The City’s sparse filing prompted the neighbors to ask the
court for permission to expand the record and file additional material relevant
to the case.
The City (and deck owners) opposed that request.
The City (and deck owners) opposed that request.
The Court granted it
After the supplemental material was filed----which included
sworn affidavits, city Building Department records and Google Earth photographs
of pools and decks currently erected in the city----the City (and deck owners)
filed a motion to strike.
They called the affidavits “gibberish,” asserted that the Google Earth images had “absolutely no bearing” on the issue at hand, and claimed that the material, in general, went “far beyond the scope” of the court’s supplementation order.
They called the affidavits “gibberish,” asserted that the Google Earth images had “absolutely no bearing” on the issue at hand, and claimed that the material, in general, went “far beyond the scope” of the court’s supplementation order.
The Court said no, it would let the material stay in the record
Next up: briefing on the “merits,” which should (finally) set the stage for a legal
ruling in the case.
That could happen this fall as the neighbors’ brief is due at the end of the month…
That could happen this fall as the neighbors’ brief is due at the end of the month…
Unless, of course, the City comes up with another taxpayer-financed avoidance and/or stall tactic
