Bayview Estates resident urges halt to HOA playground permit; city staff says appeal was premature

Bob Schwartz, a Bayview Estates resident, told the council he and many neighbors oppose plans by their homeowners association to build a community playground and plaza on a parcel they say has long been set aside for private open space. Schwartz said he filed a 45‑page appeal arguing the lot is permanently restricted, sits next to nontidal wetlands and a stormwater facility, and that a playground is a “structure” that requires code-compliant approvals including ADA access, soil testing, wetland-buffer permits and applicable safety standards used by playground designers.

Schwartz said the HOA submitted a building-permit application and requested assignment of an address for the site; neighbors say the address assignment is being used for insurance reasons and that they oppose development because of drainage, buffer requirements and safety concerns. He said residents filed an appeal on Sept. 24 but discovered on Oct. 3 that a permit had been issued.

City staff responded that the appeals process requires an administrative action to appeal. City staff (Mr. Schott) explained that filing an appeal at the time of application submission was premature because the code allows appeals only after an administrative decision is reached. Mr. Schott said that now that the permit has been issued, the appeal may proceed as an appeal of an administrative action and the staff will assist citizens on how to present that matter to the Board of Appeals.

Councilmembers clarified that routine building permits and use-and-occupancy permits are normally handled administratively (not by council vote) and that the Board of Appeals is the correct procedural venue if neighbors want to argue that a permit should not have been issued or to seek relief. Staff told the audience they would work with neighbors and the Board of Appeals process to ensure proper timing and legal steps.

Schwartz also raised specific regulatory concerns that he said the HOA had not addressed: wetlands-buffer distances (he cited a 75-foot buffer requirement from nontidal-wetlands rules), soil disturbances at a former stump/disposal area potentially creating sinkhole risk, lighting, noise and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for a feature that would operate as a public accommodation if left unlocked and available to the public. Schwartz said the HOA had removed older playground equipment years earlier and that the current permit application listed “replacement of community playground equipment,” which he said was inaccurate.

City staff confirmed that some curb painting at the neighborhood had been performed by the HOA without prior city approval and that the city had asked the HOA to remove or correct unauthorized curb painting. Staff also confirmed they will work with the appellants to ensure the Board of Appeals has the administrative record needed to evaluate compliance and permit issuance.

The matter remains in the administrative appeal process; neighbors who oppose the project are using the Board of Appeals to seek review of the issued permit and to press for any required wetland, safety or ADA compliance checks.