Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 9/15/98 <br />calculations as to retention be submitted to the Engineering Department upon availability <br />~:, <br />,~,, and that the project comply with standard requirements of engineering and the <br />Engineering Department. An additional requirement was set forth that documentation <br />would be submitted to the Engineering Department ftom the Army Corps of Engineers <br />dealing with the wetlands issue. Lastly, there was a requirement that the approval would <br />be contingent upon the approval of the Law Director as to the form and legality of <br />meetings held. Mr. Nicola specifically addressed the issue as to the form of the meetings <br />that were held throughout the planning process of this project. His letter to the Law <br />Director reads: "The March 26, 1998 and June 9, 1998 meetings of the North Olmsted <br />Planning Commission were not held in accordance with the rules and regulations of the <br />City of North Olmsted Charter. Residents who live on Clague Road who would have had <br />an immediate and profound impact on a result of the Wellington Place proposal made by <br />Shorewest Construction Company and partners were not notified that these meetings were <br />taking place. Their names were excluded from the `resident notification' letters that their <br />neighbors received. These people, including myself, were denied their right to speak on <br />the record regarding this proposal. It may be speculated that these voices would not have <br />made a significant difference at the outcome of these proceedings, but since October of <br />1990 it was my voice in particular which did make a difference at these meetings with this <br />particular developer. This is alt a matter of public record. Considering the past history of <br />this developer on this parcel of land and my own public association with them, I do <br />respectfully request the following: 1) That the City of North Olmsted Director of Law <br />declare that the aforementioned meetings be declared as being illegally held under the rules <br />and regulations of the City of North Olmsted Charter. 2) That the Shorewest <br />Construction Company and partners be required, if they choose to do so, to resubmit their <br />proposal for the Wellington Place complex to the North Olmsted Planning Commission, <br />insuring that all who would be legally affected by this project are properly notified. <br />Respectfully submitted, Andrew J. Nicola, Jr." Councilman Gareau asked for clarification <br />from the Law Director regarding Mr. Nicola's charges. Law Director Gareau said he had <br />visited this issue previous to receipt of Mr. Nicola's letter. The one meeting in question <br />had to do with the lot assembly--three lots that front on Mastick Road where the rear <br />portion of those lots were assembled to the main lot owned by Shorewest. When <br />preparing to send out notices, the Clerk of Commissions observed that the properties <br />down on Clague Road were not impacted and so notices were not sent. Mr. Nicola raised <br />the issue of not receiving notice after the Planning Commission approved the assembly of <br />the lots. Although Mr. Nicola states the City Charter was violated, that is in fact not true. <br />In reviewing the facts and the proximity of Mr. Nicola's property, there was substantial <br />compliance with notification procedures. Mr. Nicola has attended numerous meetings <br />with respect to this project. The Planning Commission has no discretion when dealing <br />with the assembly of lots for a minor subdivision under our plating code. So to ask <br />Shorewest to go back and start all over again when everybody has had their voice heard <br />with respect to every phase of this project (the assembly of lots was an insignificant part of <br />the entire project), would be to fly directly in the face of the spirit of the ordinances of the <br />city, particularly in light of the fact that the plat had been prepared, the Planning <br />Commission approved it and it was subsequently filed for record. Starting all over again <br />` would serve no purpose, and there has been substantial compliance. The fact that there <br />,. <br />6 <br /> <br />