Thursday, October 6, 2011

According to our Code Enforcement Officer:

"The only interpretation that matters is mine. And that of the mayors court magistrate if I have to cite someone into court that fails to comply."

This is the response of our Code Enforcement Officer, Dave Hays, about the interpretation of the zoning codes. What do you think?

15 comments:

  1. I would have to agree with Dave Hays. As an experienced building fire inspector, it was up to me (the inspector) to interpret the code violation and not the person who's business I was inspecting. And there were times when the building owner and I did not see eye to eye. But the business owner had every right to contest the interpretation in court. However, seldom did the challenger win in court, but there were exceptions if the business owner could flaws in the code violation.

    Lt. Charles Legg, Columbus Fire Dept., retired

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is always up to the person's interpretation of the code or law when issuing a citation or whatever when it is part of their job.

    It seems maybe this was more a question of that being used as an excuse for maybe allowing or not allowing something for some and not for others.

    For example, during candidate's night Mr. Legg stated that he has had several home businesses over the 30 years as many firemen have, yet it seems he has never had a home occupation permit while residing in Minerva Park. He stated that he would get one once his business starts making money.

    Some could interpret this to mean Mr. Legg having been a fireman makes it ok, or maybe that firemen are exempt from following some laws such as having a home occupation permit, or since he claims his home business is not making any money that it is exempt from needing a home occupation permit.

    If Mr. Legg is running a business in his home it seems reasonable he should have gotten a home occupation permit. I seriously doubt there are any exceptions for firemen or ex-firemen, and I do not feel there should be specific exceptions such as that. I also doubt there is an exception with respect to a business has to "make money" before home occupation permit is required, and I do not think it would make sense for that to be a requirement. If he filed with the State of Ohio as was mentioned for his business, then it seems very reasonable that if the State of Ohio is recognizing his business and he states he is running the business in his home, that he should be required to get a home occupation permit.

    It seems Mr. Legg is also on planning and zoning commission for Minerva Park, and this makes for a questionable situation. First, if he should be required to get a home occupation permit for the home business he stated he has, why he has not. Second is his agreeing with Dave Hays possibly a collusion or backing for himself to not be cited under Hay's interpretation.

    If he should have a home occupation permit, then this also might make one question the judgment and integrity of someone that uses their experience in a profession as a reason to place trust and believe in them. The most likely to come from this is Mr. Legg apologizing and getting a home occupation permit, or ceasing his home business. It is very unlikely a change for the better in attitude or perspective will occur with Mr. Legg or others using similar lines of thought as him.

    This is just my interpretation of the possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What was the interpretation of the zoning codes about? Was it something in general or specific to some type of possible violation?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Anonymous, the last time I operated a business out of my house was in 1995 and I did not live in Minerva Park at that time.

    I openly provided a link on my campaign website of my “business” website, so I was not trying to hide anything from anyone. I encourage everyone to visit my website and take a look at it. You will not find my Minerva Park address or phone number anywhere on the website. (I do have my home address and phone number on my personal resume, which is a downloadable PDF document from the website.) The website is more a history and presentation of my skills and knowledge, not an advertisement for a business.

    It is true that I filled with the State of Ohio the name Legg Consulting, LLC. There are other legg consulting companies in Ohio, so I wanted to protect the name. The State requires a home address, not necessarily a business address. Registering a business name is not the same as operating a business.

    Last and most important, I talked with Sara Schumacher and according to the zoning codes, ever if I were operating such a business from my house, I would not require a permit since I would have no customers coming to my house, have no marked work vehicle parked at my home, and all the work performed is by me at my computer. In other words, my neighbors would not even know I was doing anything of a work nature within my house. Anyone can call and talk with Sara if you want more details about what types of business require a permit.

    Finally, from what I understand, the person who served 20 days in jail did not serve that time because he did not have a permit; the time served was for refusing to get a permit, refusing to appear in Mayor’s court, and threatening people.

    Charles Legg
    (Why don’t you provide your name Mr. Anonymous?)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please call me Charles i would like to set up a time for you to come over so we can talk.
    Blaine Allen wildwood rd. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do not believe anything was mentioned about the last time Mr. Legg ran a business from his home. I believe it is true that during candidate's night Mr. Legg stated that he has had several home businesses over the 30 years as many firemen have, and that is what was stated. It seems he has never had a home occupation permit while residing in Minerva Park, and that is what was stated. References to firemen having home businesses was part of Mr. Legg's statement. Not sure what the purpose to state "as many firemen have" in relation to having a home business, however some could interpret that to mean Mr. Legg having been a fireman makes it ok, or maybe that firemen are exempt from following some laws such as having a home occupation permit for a home business, and it seems reasonable to clarify there are not likely any exceptions for firemen or ex-firemen.

    Nothing was stated about Mr. Legg "trying to hide anything from anyone", or that a Minerva Park address or phone number was somewhere on his “business” website. As a matter of fact nothing was mentioned about any website of his. I can appreciate the aspect that his “business” website is more a history and presentation of his skills and knowledge. However I find the statement "it is not an advertisement for a business" to be on the side of contradiction since it is his “business” website and not an "about Mr. Legg" website with no mention of his business. An advertisement is a form of communication to affect a consumer's behavior, so why have a “business” website with history and presentation of skills and knowledge, particularly if is of the one person that is providing the service or product of business?

    Nothing was stated about what the State requires for registering a business name. If Mr. Legg filed with the State of Ohio as stated for his business and he is running the business in his home as stated, then it seems very reasonable that he should be required to get a home occupation permit.

    I still doubt there is an exception with respect to a business has to "make money" before home occupation permit is required, I also doubt the code states a permit is not required if 1) no customers coming to the home (a landscaping or handyman business in the village seems to be required and they go to their customers to perform work), 2) no marked work vehicle parked at the home (a landscaping or handyman business in the village could have vehicles with no markings), and 3) all the work performed is by the person at a computer (a landscaping or handyman business in the village does not perform their business in their home and they could very well use a computer to keep track of it).

    Nothing was stated about a person that served 20 days in jail, so what is the real purpose of it being mentioned? The person "did not serve that time because he did not have a permit; the time served was for refusing to get a permit"??? That does not really make sense. Why would time be served for refusing to get a permit yet he "did not serve that time because he did not have a permit"? If the person had a permit then the premise of refusing to get a permit would not exist. Could it possibly be if the person had agreed to get a permit since they did not have one and it was deemed they should have one, that they would not have served time for that infraction? Maybe the "refusing to appear in Mayor’s court" and "threatening people" were factors when the sentence was imposed? I do not recall hearing anything about alleged threats being an issue raised until after the sentence was served, so why if time was served for the alleged threats, why were they raised again after time served? It seems there are doubts about the accuracy of the understanding Mr. Legg provided.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This thread is getting tiring and I refuse to dignify it any longer with a detailed response.

    This whole discussion of me being a firefighter and operating a home business without a permit is nothing but a red hearing (look up the term if you don’t know what it means). Here is what the Planning and Zoning Code of Minerva Park, Ohio states:

    Section 1272.04, b ,3 - Permitted home occupations.

    The following shall be illustrative of permitted home occupations: handicrafts, art or music lessons, dressmaking, millinery, laundry, preserving and home cooking. Other uses shall be permitted by the Mayor if he or she determines that such uses are in keeping with the intent and purpose of this section. It shall not be the intent of this section to prohibit the maintenance by a homeowner of a private professional office (e.g. a lawyer’s, doctor’s, or architect’s) on his or her premises, provided that the provisions of this section regarding signage, traffic and other provisions regulating home occupations are adhered to.

    I am a professional consultant, the same as an architect, SO I DO NOT NEED A PERMIT even if I were operating a consulting business at of my house. End of discussion.

    And by the way, the correct term is firefighter not fireman, woman have been fighting fire now for over thirty years, quit being sexist!

    Charles Legg

    ReplyDelete
  8. This was a response fueled by a particular issue, but my interpretation is that it was intended to be an overall response to any potential code violation.

    Interpretation seems to be a bit of a "garbage term" depending on its use. In this sense, it gives the user an easy out in the future.

    Laws must be interpreted, that's why we have judges and a massive legal system in the U.S. However laws about zoning in a village of 1,200 shouldn't be quite as ambiguous as relying on the interpretation of two people, leading to potential variation in interpretations. We have approximately 197 pages of zoning code for a reason.

    In the past there have been issues with codes being enforced for some and not others that are identical infractions. Perhaps they were interpreted differently. I was hoping our new code enforcement officer worked at a higher level of professionalism than our last; so far, I sense some improvement but this looks like a setback.

    This is my opinion of it, and I felt the attitude on the issue ought to be shared for some discussion. Any new thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Legg, no downside intended using the term fireman instead of firefighter, and to allege or even suggest its use was being sexist seems shallow and undignified. The discussion has nothing to do with anyone having been a firefighter or about firefighters, however a reference to firefighters when speaking of operating a home business was part of Mr. Legg's statement, and that was addressed. Fyi, I believe the proper term meant is "red herring", not "red hearing".

    "It shall not be the intent of this section to prohibit the maintenance by a homeowner of a private professional office (e.g. a lawyer’s, doctor’s, or architect’s) on his or her premises, provided that the provisions of this section regarding signage, traffic and other provisions regulating home occupations are adhered to."

    This does not seem very clear for more than one reason. It states "It shall not be the intent of this section to prohibit the maintenance ..." as opposed to strong indication that "a home occupation permit is not required for a
    business comprised of a professional office ...". It seems a stretch for "maintenance" to mean or imply the same as "operate a business" or "home occupation". It also does not seem the intent is to allow a business for a specific profession to operate in a home without a permit, however this is just my interpretation of the possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do not believe pointing out that it's firefighter and not fireman makes anyone undignified and/or shallow. Legg stated a fact that will hopefully help you out in the future so as not to insult women in the field.

    I think wasting so much time putting down a community where you CHOOSE to reside is shallow and speaking about people in the community on a blog is undignified. But, that's just my interpretation of this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous is very correct concerning "red herring", not "red hearing". I noticed the miss spelling after the comment was posted, but unfortunately, we cannot edit or delete our comments on this blog, so there it stays.

    I also apologize for the sexiest comment, it was uncalled for. Many people do not know women are firefighters.

    I guess I am just so frustrated over the whole permit issue when we have more important issues that we need to deal with.

    Charles Legg

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not an issue about the sexiest comment. Seemed rather ironic the "red hearing" comment came right after that with a comment regarding the use of "proper" terms or words. "hearing" was not miss spelled, it was just not the correct word for the intended term. That type of thing happens and sometimes having things pointed out can help one to be more aware and maybe do better going forward. Maybe some things being pointed out with the village can help things be better going forward, but that is always made harder when people interpret things such as that to be wasting time and putting down a community.

    I imagine whatever frustration about the "permit issue" is present, can maybe provide some insight as to how some residents feel that have been on the other side, meaning told or whatever by the village that they have to get a permit for something that is clearly not a business being operated in their home, or potentially be subjected to legal action. Apparently for those folks, someone with the village felt it was more important than some other issues that should be dealt with.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is hard to tell who said what when all your names are Anonymous. Come on people, if you have something worthwhile to say, use a name, even if it is a made up name, just be consistent.

    If you dislike me as a candidate (hopefully not as a person, but maybe some do), then tell me why. I am educated, opened minded, and willing to discuss issues. You can email me directly at Charles@Vote4CharlesLegg.info with concerns.

    As far as the permit, I wanted to get one (and pay the measly $20), but was told I didn’t need one. If that makes me a despicable person and part of the problem you have with the current administration, them I guess I am guilty. Nothing I can do about that, it’s your opinion.

    I understand that many of those who read and comment on this blog are unhappy with the current administration, but what do you have to offer in its place. All I hear from most of the same individuals are complains and condemnation of the elected officials, with no reasonable solutions. If you hate it so much living here in this horrible village, then why not move into Columbus where the government is much more sympathetic to your wants and desires.

    The Village of Minerva Park is a very special place which the majority of residents love. Residents here have more access to local government than any other municipality in central Ohio. I would be honored to serve on the Village Council and work to address many of the concerns that some residents have that read this blog. That is all I am asking.

    Charles Legg

    ReplyDelete
  14. It seems there is a complaint of the reliance upon a limited number of individual's interpretation and how it has maybe been a factor in the inequitable application of codes. A suggestion would a more equitable application of codes through a more consistent interpretation that is based more on the code than a couple or so individuals. However it does not seem something as reasonable as that is likely to occur when those doing the interpretation and application seem reluctant to address issues raised.

    I think this is demonstrated in the current application of code when a home occupation permit is needed using the following as interpretations based on a talk with Sara Schumacher and according to the zoning codes when one is not needed - "no customers coming to my house", "no marked work vehicle parked at my home", and "all the work performed is by me at my computer". I saw nothing in the code as those being requirements that exempt one being needed.

    Along with another interpretation of "I am a professional consultant, the same as an architect, SO I DO NOT NEED A PERMIT even if I were operating a consulting business at of my house. End of discussion." I saw nothing in the code that a business consisting of a "professional" occupation exempts one being needed.

    "End of discussion"? That seems to be a common mantra of those using what seems to be questionable interpretations and do not feel issues raised are worth addressing.

    I do not think any of the comments regarding this post have made statements putting down the community or hate living here or that this is a horrible village. Not sure why the one post from an anonymous and one from Legg would make such negative statements about that regarding others.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Code Enforcement Officer is nothing but a hot head that does not even know what the code says.One thing i can say he is not taking pic. of peoples wives like the past one creeping around in peoples yards. The new guy seems to listen to Mayor and does her dirty work. Not sure if he has a brain of his own.

    ReplyDelete