08/16/2010 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting Minutes 8-16-10 Page 2 What happened was Mayfield Heights seemingly tried to get a little clever. On the same day that the City signed a legal document in which they actually stipulated that their U-1 single family zoning of a parcel was unconstitutional, Council simply voted to change that zoning to U-2 cluster homes. Now, if that stipulation was based on facts that revealed that the property was uninhabitable, it would remain that way whether it was single or multi-family, so that didn't work out for the City. The Supreme Court decision in that case is also very limited to its unique facts which led the Court to conclude that the property was uninhabitable. It wasn't just as somebody suggested to you that the properiy was along 271. I would like to quote you from that case and show you that it is extremely limited to its facts. The Supreme Court says, for instance, expert witnesses real estate appraisers Roger Whitley and Wesley Baker, both testified that the property is perhaps the only site along I-271 surrounded by high tension wires, two-family zoning and retail uses. Even the City's expert witness, City Planner David Hartt concedes this point. Moreover, the high intensity lights along this part of I-271 are so bright that one witness testified he was able to read a newspaper at 10:30 p.m. without any other source of illumination. In addition to the six high tension power poles, CEI's easement also encumbers the property. The irregular shapes, sma11 size and grading of the property which is even with the highway also adversely affects the habitability of the parcel. Although the City's expert planner David Harit testified that the property is habitable, even he had to admit that given the surrounding characteristics of the property, the potential occupants of residential units would be limited to elderly and/or childless residents who are uninterested in using their yards on a regular basis. That's a quote from the Supreme Court case, so you can see that the holding in that case is limited to its facts. A later case which I believe was decided by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2009 called Gilmour Realty u Mayfield Heights said to the people who were challenging that City's zoning ordinances, you can't just come and knock on the Supreme Court's door and have your zoning ordinance overturned. It didn't work in that case. So we are not looking at any kind of fear factor that should lead us to give up our vote in the Costco case. A final note in that case, it did cost a lot of money. It went on for a lot of years. But in part it was because Council and the Mayor in that case took every action they possibly could to hy to avoid following the mandate of the Courts in that case. I tlunk I saw an e-mail by our own Mayor that said, called the, sta.ted that the Mayor of Mayfield Heights even publicly castigated the Ohio Supreme Court in the midst of that litigation and obviously the Court was not amused and found against the City. So if you are looking for the cost and why it was so expensive in that case, you can look at how the case went up and down and all around and went on for a very long time when it didn't have to. The right to vote on zoning is very important. So too the right to referendum doesn't actually replace our right to vote but in circumstances where Council is allowed to vote on an action, the right of referendum gives us a chance to go back and collect signatures. The problem with referendum without the right to. vote first in zoning is that for example if Council could vote to enact a massive zoning change on any given December lst, good luck for the citizens in trying to collect enough signatures in 30 days to get a referendum on the ballot. You may not even know about the zoning change until the 30 days has expired, so, I think you should consider that the onus should remain on