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.
