Ginger Tea, No-Shows and Get Go

GINGER TEA

I’m a coffee junkie in the morning. Since my workdays are spent in front of a computer, I need caffeine to get revved up and rolling each day.

In the afternoon, however, I’m strictly an herbal tea girl.

I’m currently hooked on Yogi Ginger tea. It has a bit of a bite because black pepper is one of the ingredients. Ginger tea is perfect for powering through mid-afternoon work doldrums.

Each Yogi tea bag comes with a saying, which is printed on the paper tag at the end of the tea bag string. Opening the tea bag is like opening a fortune cookie---you get words of wisdom, but with fewer calories.

A couple of months ago I was pretty pessimistic about the Bass Energy situation.
Shortly after the new Council was seated in January (minus Scott Mills, who had become firmly opposed to drilling gas wells in the park) I began picking up vibes that the pro-drillers on Council – there were always several – were gaining significant traction.

My fears were confirmed when a drilling resolution appeared on a Council agenda in early February.  The resolution – which included, as an attachment, an explicitly detailed drilling lease – signaled quite clearly that Mayor Scott Coleman and Council were planning to let Bass drill frac gas wells in the park – even though Highland Heights residents overwhelmingly approved a new Charter provision in 2008 that strictly prohibits that activity.

A drilling freight train was on its way, headed straight for the Highland Heights Community Park.

Which brings me back to Yogi ginger tea.

During one of my most discouraged days, I grabbed a ginger tea bag and headed back to my desk. I read the tea tag message as I waited for the tea to finish brewing. It said:

“You will feel fulfilled when you do the impossible for someone else.”

Silly as it might seem, that tea bag spoke to me that day.

Clearly the “impossible” task was stopping the runaway drilling freight train and completing the work I began 4½  years ago, when I conceived of and headed the petition drive that led to the adoption of the 2008 Charter amendment to protect the park.

The “someone else” was, of course, the residents of Highland Heights, who overwhelmingly approved the new Charter provision – and whose decision was in serious danger of being ignored by our city’s elected leaders.

I am happy (and very) relieved to report that with the help of others, including over 200 residents who showed up to witness Council’s drilling vote resolution, I succeeded in “doing the impossible.”

The roaring drilling freight train was stopped in its tracks.

As I sit here today, do I feel fulfilled? You bet I do. Big time.

It took ton of hard work over many years – against what seemed, at times, to be overwhelming odds – but I have done something good for my community.
I go to bed each night with a smile on my face, knowing that the Community Park and all of the city’s parkland will now be preserved and protected, intact, for future generations to come.

QUICK UPDATES

HIGHLAND MEDICAL BUILDING REZONING ISSUE

Although he expressed great impatience with Council two weeks ago, the owner of Highland Medical Center was a no-show at last week’s Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting.

Although Council briefly discussed one other small item, the Highland Medical Center rezoning issue was the primary reason Council held the COW.  It was the #1 issue on a 2 item agenda.

Council President Cathy Murphy invited the property owner to attend the COW, so they could move his rezoning request along, but for whatever reason, the property owner never appeared.  That made for a very short (21 minute) meeting.

Law Director Tim Paluf recommended changing the zoning classification for the property that the medical building owner wants to use for an expanded parking lot from residential to “Automobile Parking.”  “Automobile Parking” is more restrictive than the “Office Building” classification that the property owner seemed to be pitching for two weeks ago. The rezoning issue should appear on the November ballot.

For his part, Councilman Ed Hargate wanted to make sure that the property owner provided adequate screening from the residential properties along Ford Road. Hargate said,

“In the 1980s (when the medical building was constructed) he (the property owner) agreed to put in fence and shrubbery.  I want the same condition for the extension of this zoning … Residents on Ford Road remember that, they know that … He’s agreed to it in the past.”

 MEGA GETGO: THE FUN AND GAMES CONTINUE

Developer Lance Osborne has been “Mr. In a Hurry” ever since he got involved in the proposed Mega GetGo development last May. According to him, everything on the city’s side has to be done ASAP/right away/as in yesterday or the whole deal will fall through.

When it comes to his side of things, however, Osborne doesn’t seem to be in too much of a rush.

He waited several months before finally agreeing to Council’s rezoning ballot language. That hurdle overcome, Osborne was scheduled to appear before the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) on May 14 to get approval for a required “lot split.”

The “lot split” will make a separate parcel out of the front part of the Catalano’s property, along Wilson Mills Road.  That’s where a mega Get-Go gas station/café will be installed – if the rezoning issue passes citywide and in Ward 4 in November.

“Mr. In a Hurry,” however, wasn’t ready to go forward with his lot split request on May 14. He told P&Z,

“I forgot my presentation boards at the office.”

His dog ate his homework?

It was quickly apparent that Osborne hadn’t completed the formalities necessary to get P&Z approval for a lot split.

Instead, P&Z was asked to give “preliminary approval” to the lot split, based on a rough drawing supplied by Osborne.

That was completely out of the norm for P&Z.  They aren’t in the business of “preliminarily” approving lot splits.

Lawyer and P&Z member Don McFadden was confused by the request:

“I’m not sure what we’re preliminarily approving…I’ve never seen a lot split without a legal description (of the property involved).”

When McFadden asked what the standards were for giving preliminary approval, Councilman/P&Z member Bob Mastrangelo (a Get-Go booster) replied,

“There is no preliminary approval. He’s (Osborne) really just getting a blessing.”

To further confuse the matter, Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder told P&Z,

“The law director (Tim Paluf) wants to handle it this way. P&Z will approve it (the lot split) preliminarily tonight, then it will go to council for approval, then it will come back (to P&Z) for formal approval with the city engineer’s approval.”

Later Grabfelder said it was Council who was seeking the unusual “preliminary approval” from P&Z:

“Council is looking for your blessing on the lot split. If council gives its blessing, he (Osborne) will be back on (the P&Z agenda) on May 29 on the final plot.”

Grabfelder’s explanation seemed to fall apart the next day.

At the May 15 Committee of the Whole meeting, Council President Cathy Murphy asked Law Director Tim Paluf directly whether Council approves lot splits. Paluf replied,

“No, only if it’s a subdivision or a (large scale) development.  (When it’s just a single property involved) As long as P&Z approves it, that’s all he (the property owner) needs.”

Councilman/P&Z Bob Mastrangelo also gave a different spin on the previous night’s P&Z discussion. He indicated that it was Osborne – not the law director or Council – who requested the preliminary approval. Mastrangelo explained that the request was,

“More of a courtesy to P&Z. If P&Z would give its blessing, then he’d (Osborne) go ahead with work to finalize it (the lot split).”

Confused? Yeah, me too – and I attended both meetings.

Why would P&Z be asked to do something it never does, and why so many different explanations as to the source of that request?

Since we’ve seen this kind of thing before in connection with the proposed mega GetGo development, it should come as no surprise to learn that P&Z passed a motion giving formal preliminary approval to Osborne’s informally sketched out, still-subject-to-revision, tentatively proposed lot split.

And once again only Ann D’Amico, a lawyer with commonsense, voted no. She explained,

“I am not giving formal approval (to this preliminary approval request). It’s not clear to me why we would do it.”

They did it, apparently, because somebody asked them to.

Saying “no” just doesn’t seem to occur to the boys on P&Z – especially when developer Lance Osborne is involved.