Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press council to scrutinize O'Neil Group 58-unit South Hamilton proposal; cite past problems and legal threats
Summary
Residents of the South Side Historic District urged the Common Council to scrutinize a proposed 58-unit development by the O'Neil Group on South Hamilton Street, citing scale, drainage, traffic and historic-preservation concerns and alleging legal threats from the developer toward neighborhood organizers.
Residents from the South Side Historic District used the Common Council's public participation slot to press elected officials to scrutinize a proposed 58-unit apartment project on South Hamilton Street, prompting repeated calls for full environmental review and stronger municipal oversight.
Speakers including Mike Harmeth, president of the Historic South Side Neighborhood Association; Roger Christenfeld; Jeremy Rizzi; Diane Pedavalano; Anne Harmeth; Shirley Adams; Tina McKenna and others described the project as out of scale with the neighborhood, raised traffic, noise and drainage concerns, and said they have suffered harassment and threats after placing yard signs opposing the proposal.
Mike Harmeth told the council the developer's lawyers sent him a cease-and-desist letter after neighbors placed signs with a QR code linking to project details; Harmeth said the letter threatened restraining orders and punitive damages. Harmeth also alleged prior problems with O'Neil projects, including OSHA violations and stop-work orders on other local sites. Multiple speakers said the new plan requires extensive blasting and truck traffic to remove rock and earth for foundations and said the resulting two-story building would loom over surrounding historic homes.
Several speakers said planning-board public comment had closed and that new documents had been submitted afterward; others said the developer has not substantially changed the aspects neighbors find objectionable. Speakers asked the council to "make use of your oversight of city operations to support the citizens" and to ensure "this project is held to the letter of the law, including a full environmental impact mitigation." They said prior zoning changes would limit the site under the new code and characterized the current proposal as being grandfathered into the older R-4 zoning.
Corporation counsel addressed the council after public comment to clarify the council's role: the Common Council does not act as an appellate body to the planning board, and planning-board members are appointed by the mayor with authorities governed by state statutes. Counsel warned council members that individual ex parte communications with planning-board members could expose the city to legal challenge and encouraged speakers and council members to raise concerns in the planning-board record rather than in private conversations.
Neighbors asked for council assistance in ensuring the planning process is enforced and that the planning board consider the community's concerns, including potential need for a full environmental impact statement.
