As Dwight Clark once said, “Time for our favorite part of
the meeting – audience questions.” It is a time during council or committee
sessions for residents to voice concerns or ask questions in a forum where it
becomes public record. Last night, a young couple, along with their school aged
children addressed an issue that continues to affect their family. They
attended to state “complete and total dissatisfaction with the way the
ordinance complaint was handled”. They wanted the city and council to
understand what went wrong and why. They still have concerns and looked for
assurance that expectations going forward would be met.
This family of four has resided for 15 years near a school
building that recently underwent a renovation. As an abutting property they
should have received notice of a public hearing regarding construction. They
did not receive notices of any kind from the city. “We clearly would have
attended because we have had this issue in the past.” The issue and the
ordinance they refer to is 1176.08 LIGHTING. “Sources of light for illumination
of structures, off-street parking areas, off-street loading areas or any other
light sources shall be shielded so as not to be objectionable or hazardous to
occupants of adjacent property or users of the public streets.”
Observing the construction progress this summer the
residents knew that the lighting being installed would cause a problem. They
had experienced the same issue a few years ago when improvements were made to
the school lot and after getting nowhere then, the city stepped in. There was
an inspection and it was found to be in violation.
This July as soon as they realized they were adding two more
light poles – going from one to three, and already familiar with the impact of
one, they reached out during the construction phase to John Cheatham of the
building department; who in turn contacted Daryl Stumph, Assistant
Superintendent of Operations for the schools. The residents were told if there
was a problem after installation to let the city know. Mr.Cheatham conveyed
that Mr. Stumph stated they would not be adversely affected. After
installation, he stated that the lights are LED and shine down (as opposed to
being broadcast). Mr. Stumph and the architect looked after dark and said the
street lighting is more aggressive on the house than the parking lot lights.
The mayor contacted Clint Keener, School Superintendent to resolve the issue
because it is on school property. After the residents had an exchange with the
building official, and asked that he review the complaint in person, he decided
–without looking at it, there was no violation of code - and refused
inspection. It was their council representative that eventually got the ball
rolling to get the fabrication for the lights.
This brings us to the point where shields will be installed
for the lighting facing their property. They are grateful for this but remain
unsure the issue will be resolved. They are concerned over the specs of the
work order and whether they have researched and studied the angles and lengths
of the shields. They are concerned their property value has been compromised.
They feel if the process had gone the way it should have this could have all
been avoided.
They requested to be made aware when the inspection will
take place so they can be present.
They appreciate those that put forth an effort to assist.
A complaint was submitted to Safebuilt and never
acknowledged.
This is another issue that – pardon me – sheds light on
several problem areas and attitudes in our systems. This time it is not just
the City, but the Board of Education as well. It is frustrating when, as a
resident, you do what is expected of you to be a good neighbor but do not get
the same respect in return.
No comments:
Post a Comment