The Planning Commision

Who protects you and your surroundings? When you can’t attend a meeting who fights for what can be built in your neighborhood?  The Planning Commission does. A revision to the Planning Commission procedure may gut the building project approval process that this commission oversees. Projects on the table could be fast tracked and avoid public scrutiny, but at least campaign contributions would remain intact.

Two vacant seats after a noteworthy November Planning meeting could be coincidental.

I urge you to read the highlights below taken from the draft of the November meeting minutes. Bear with me, this is important and these notes accurate. In a couple of days I will follow up on tonight’s meeting.

We should all feel violated by unfair actions; in this case no one more so than the members of our Planning Commission. The City needs to rise to the level of accountability, compliance and integrity we deserve and pay dearly for and that this commission exhibited. Our public commissions and boards are trusted with, among other duties, upholding the process. We put our faith in the individuals that volunteer to sit on these commissions and the majority has earned that respect and takes their duty seriously. They must be able to enforce adherence to ordinances, policies and procedures without fear and without having to go out on a limb. It is necessary that they be insulated from the politics surrounding their appointment so they can enforce and advocate the standards in place for transparency, fairness and protection. Candor and loyalty to the residents, our ordinances and codes are genuine expectations from the public. Glory should be given to those members of the Planning Commission that had the decency to challenge administrative interference. 

                   

The Bradley Bay Nursing Home addition and Crestview Street development of 9 houses behind Bradley Bay is the largest project in the city.

                                                                                                                                                  The Planning Commission resumed on November 5, 2014 to hear “Bradley Center Limited Southern Extension of Crestview Drive and development of 9 lots containing 4.31 acres” This matter was last heard by the Planning Commission on June 4, 2014.

In June a request was made for a report from the Service Director and the City of Bay Village Consulting Engineer regarding this project. There were questions about the project that needed answers, plans that needed to be submitted.

At November’s meeting, the report, requested in June, was not submitted. July, August and October meetings were cancelled due to lack of an agenda. This was ample opportunity and more than enough time to get this on the agenda and follow the process. 

Mr. Greytak of CT Consultants stated that he has not done a report. He was prepared to give a verbal report. The ordinance requires written reports. 

Mr. O’Neill(the owner of the projects) is seeking final approval with a notation on the current application that the preliminary plats were approved in June. Members of the commission agree that not only was the preliminary not approved but have the meeting minutes to back this. The minutes reflect no such approval. (Where did the approval come from?)

To move forward, a preliminary plat must be approved and a written report with recommendations is a requirement. Upon receiving the report, the Planning Commission has 90 days to make a determination for approval before submission to council.

“Mr. Greytak stated that the way this project has developed has been rather unusual in that even before he was aware that there was a subdivision proposed, there were final plans being delivered to their office for review. To compound that, the sub lots were being piggy-backed on a previous development that had already been approved, and did not reflect the joint sharing of storm water utilities between the Bradley Health Care Facility and the Crestview Subdivision. It has been an unusual sequence of delivery of documents.”

(Blueprints were leaked for parts of this add-on in March of 2014. When the Mayor was questioned about this at the Town Hall in March, she claimed no knowledge of additional plans. I questioned City employees after that Town Hall – “The plans are out there so someone gave the go ahead, someone approved them, who?” The response I received was “no comment”.)

Between June and November, the developer’s engineer went on to rectify shortcomings without first taking it to the commission as is procedure. Mr. O’Neill also revised the easement language to bring it into conformance under Mr. Ebert’s instruction.

Comments from various members of the Planning Commission:

“For the sake of transparency in the process, which is spelled out in the codes, why weren’t these things on the agendas for the Planning Commission meetings?”

“Planning Commission is responsible for eventually sending this project to City Council. They are the representatives of the people of Bay Village. The Planning Commission has requirements in the code. If we are going to send something to the people of the City, it should be complete in accordance with the code. Not only are we required to have a report regarding the Preliminary Plat from the Director of Public Service, but also from the final plat as well. We do not have that report either. How do we go forward if we are lacking those essential items? Mr. O’Neill is here tonight to seek final approval, but without those items we are not prepared to send this on to Council.”

“…a lot of work going on behind the scenes that should have been done before the Planning Commission. The report requested for five months was never received. The process is not the problem; it is how the process is being handled.”

“The public deserves the opportunity to review and respond to the comments”

“There is a process in place and if you make changes for certain people and not others you open yourself to problems, unless there is a true emergency.”

“We are not giving residents an opportunity to be heard.”

There was a question as to whether the preliminary plat and the final plat could both be approved at December’s meeting. But the statute for the ordinance does not provide for that.

Mr. Cheatham noted that in Mr. O’Neill’s defense, he has been doing these things behind the scenes with the City thinking that was what was necessary.

As to this last statement, and all due respect to Mr. Cheatham –I am not convinced that Mr. O’Neill, his engineers and especially the City did not know they were doing things erroneously. Bypassing the commission in turn complicates issues for the other review boards, council and anyone that needs to go before these commissions and boards. As intimated, this smacks of preferential treatment. It is my opinion that this wasn’t lazy, it wasn’t sloppy, it wasn’t a misunderstanding - these were blatant and flagrant maneuvers to skirt the system – as it is for now.