The Highland Heights neighbors’ challenge to the towering,
over-sized Rutland Drive deck is slowly moving forward in the 8th
District appeals court.
The neighbors filed their appellate brief on time, on February 12th.
The ball is now in the City’s and the deck owners’ court.
http://cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us/COA_CaseInformation_Docket.aspx?q=csinH68bJGxVyN-u8RyKvw2
The neighbors filed their appellate brief on time, on February 12th.
The ball is now in the City’s and the deck owners’ court.
http://cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us/COA_CaseInformation_Docket.aspx?q=csinH68bJGxVyN-u8RyKvw2
The City is a party to the dispute because the decision on appeal was rendered by the Highland Heights Building & Zoning Appeals
Board, which affirmed the Planning & Zoning Commission's earlier rejection of the neighbors' challenge to the massive deck.
Both zoning bodies gave their stamp of approval to the massive deck despite the fact that---
Both zoning bodies gave their stamp of approval to the massive deck despite the fact that---
-
The deck does not comply with the City’s 40 foot rear property line setback
requirement for residential decks
- The owners didn't get a permit before building the deck
- The City never performed mandatory safety inspections because the deck was substantially completed when the owners finally applied for a building permit
- The as-built deck is actually much (74%) larger than the one the owners told the city (in their permit application) that they were going to build, and
- The deck is subject to a never administratively-appealed Tear Down Order issued by the Building Commissioner.
Doesn’t that make your head spin?
Zoning laws and permitting processes are designed to protect and benefit property, and property owners, in the City.
To work, they need to be applied, as written, in an even--handed manner to everybody.
What happens when the administrative bodies responsible for enforcing the city’s zoning laws and permitting processes render decisions that run counter to those laws and processes?
Just ask the neighbors.
Zoning laws and permitting processes are designed to protect and benefit property, and property owners, in the City.
To work, they need to be applied, as written, in an even--handed manner to everybody.
What happens when the administrative bodies responsible for enforcing the city’s zoning laws and permitting processes render decisions that run counter to those laws and processes?
Just ask the neighbors.
They have lots of opinions on the matter.
But back to the lawsuit…
Rather than filing their responsive briefs on time, the City and the deck owners have filed motions asking the appeals court to give them more time.
For his part, Highland Heights Law Director Tim Paluf told the appeals court that he needs more time because:
Rather than filing their responsive briefs on time, the City and the deck owners have filed motions asking the appeals court to give them more time.
For his part, Highland Heights Law Director Tim Paluf told the appeals court that he needs more time because:
“….due to his schedule he has been unable to thoroughly research and review the unique issues relevant to this case.
Say what?
Excuse my French, but (in my opinion):
Excuse my French, but (in my opinion):
What a pant load
Paluf’s excuse is both alarming and
absolutely hilarious.
This dispute started in May 2014.
The facts are pretty straightforward, and the legal issues have been pretty clear and consistent from the beginning.
This dispute started in May 2014.
The facts are pretty straightforward, and the legal issues have been pretty clear and consistent from the beginning.
Paluf even weighed in on the issue several months after the massive Rutland Drive deck became a political hot potato in the City.
He researched the issue and wrote a memorandum, in which he purportedly opined that the deck was ok to stay.
I say “purportedly” because despite repeated requests from the neighbors, the City steadfastly refused to share Paluf’s memorandum with them.
It seems to me that since it was never publicly disclosed, was not included in the administrative record and was never presented as evidence at the hearings, the zoning boards shouldn't have considered Paluf's memorandum when making their decisions.
But they did.
Several Planning & Zoning Commission members specifically cited Paluf’s secret legal memorandum as a basis for rejecting the
neighbors’ challenge to the massive Rutland Drive deck.
Is that fair? Is that right?
Is that fair? Is that right?
Don’t get me started.
So back to the appeals court and Paluf’s motion…
First Paluf researches the issues and writes a secret memorandum that proves highly persuasive to several zoning commission members.
Then he turns around and tells the appeals court that he can’t file his brief on time because he hasn’t had enough time to “thoroughly research and review the unique” issues in the case.
First Paluf researches the issues and writes a secret memorandum that proves highly persuasive to several zoning commission members.
Then he turns around and tells the appeals court that he can’t file his brief on time because he hasn’t had enough time to “thoroughly research and review the unique” issues in the case.
It kind of makes you wonder.
Do you suppose Paluf crossed his fingers behind his back when he told the
appeals court that he hadn’t had enough time to “thorough(ly) research” the issues yet?
Or do you suppose he was telling the truth?
If that’s the case, then maybe, despite his taxpayer-paid six figure income, the opinion he expressed in his secret 2014 legal memorandum wasn’t “thoroughly” researched to begin with.
Which leads to another question:
Or do you suppose he was telling the truth?
If that’s the case, then maybe, despite his taxpayer-paid six figure income, the opinion he expressed in his secret 2014 legal memorandum wasn’t “thoroughly” researched to begin with.
Which leads to another question:
Do you suppose Paluf led the zoning board members astray?
The appellate court gave the City and the deck owners until April 7th
to file the briefs.
It also warned:
It also warned:
“No further extension (will be granted) absent exigent circumstances.”
Guess Paluf needs to get cracking on that legal research....
