02/11/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

protect the residents then? The city is not obligated to give relief to a business person because he, made a bad decision. Chairman Tallon asked Mr. Skoulis to summarize his'statements because he had been speaking for almost fifl.y minutes. Mr. Skoulis stated that he thought that he had given enough reasons and did not know what else could be said, so he agreed to stop speaking. He concluded that if the commission could not vote on it by what the people had told them, he did not know what else to say. Mr. Corsi introduced Mr. Platt, representing Home Depot, who wanted to address some comments made by Mr. Skoulis. Mr. Platt advised that he was real estate manager for Home Depot and stated that he had not intended to speak this evening, he had planned to observe. He clid have to comment on a couple of things that Mr. Skoulis was accusing his company of. Seeing that they have no stores open in the Oluo area yet, when he (Mr. Skoulis) was talking about predatory pricing, he found that to be outrageous. Soineone speaking from the audience stated that there are facts to back this up. Mr. Skoulis stated that those were not his quotes. Mr. Platt stated that Mr. Skoulis' expert was a`?io growth" person from California who has chased Home Depot all over the state to stop them from developing. He suppose that one could find some expert to back up anything and he just wanted to say that Home Depot has been a good corporate citizen, any where is top rated, and they expect to be while they are in Northeast Ohio. He took objection to that, and what he accusing them of was illegaL Someone from the audience stated that he was quoting someone, he was not accusing anyone. Mr. Platt responded that Mr. Skoulis accused them, he said this is the way Home Depot operated, this is not the way Home Depot operates, because they are a better business, a better competitor, they have no ground zero philosophy, that is not the way they do business and he was really offended. Someone from the audience asked Mr. Platt if he wanted to read the facts there they were. Mr. Coyne, attorney, asked to make some comments and , answer questions. Chairmau Tallon .interrupted since if Mr. Corsi had asked to rebut something before he asked if he wanted to speak. Mr. Coyne responded that Mr. Corsi wanted to introduce Mr. Platt. Mr. Coyne advised that he did not want to rebut anything either; he just wanted to make it clear that they were here to answer any questions that the commission might have, if they want to address some of the questions raised by the citizens. Mr. Corsi diil not wish to speak again. The members discussed the proposal among themselves. Chairman Tallon advised that whereas this commission, the residents, the developer had spent many months in the past, approximately 1988, to rezone this property from its original use, residential and multi family, to its present use of office to the satisfaction of all parties. The purpose of this lengthy ordeal was to afford the developer a site which he could develop and at the same time preserve the safety, health, and quality of life for the homeowner abutting the,property. He felt that this still holds true. This community, as well as all communities, has a sacred bond with its citizens to provide a safe, secure, and a quality life for its residents. This means that when the market trends change that the citizens do not necessarily have to conform to the market changes, the citizens should be allowed to go to bed at night with the lcnowledge that their home is secure in the fact that their property was purchased and the land that is around it is zoned the same as when it was purchased. This city has done everytbing to co-operate with the developer, we rezoned the'property in 1988, we again addressed the issue in 1992 and the Master Plan found the use to be the same. The commission sees no use to change the Master Plan at this particular point in time and fell that the present zoning is property and beneficial to all. 19