Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges council voting and ordinance versions favor developers; council acknowledges point
Summary
Robert Shanahan told the Vandalia council he found three different versions of an amendment to a traffic impact study ordinance and accused the council of favoring developers; Council member Lewis called Shanahan—s remarks "salient" but did not record corrective action.
VANDALIA, Ohio — During the public-comment portion of the Nov. 17 Vandalia City Council meeting, resident Robert Shanahan urged the council to apply ordinance language strictly and criticized what he described as inconsistent record-keeping.
"After the special meeting last week, we now have 3 versions of the infamous traffic impact study amendment to ordinance 25-02," Shanahan said, identifying himself as living at 7733 South Brown School Road. He told council the three versions included "the version that was actually voted on, the version that was actually recorded and published, and the version that was somewhat agreed upon last week." Shanahan said those differences have had real consequences, pointing to a prior referendum package that was denied because it "did not meet the exact wording and meaning of the ordinance as written." He asked, "Who gets to choose when the law needs to be followed exactly word for word or when it's okay to use a loose interpretation of the language?"
Shanahan alleged that decisions over the past 14 months "almost everyone" favored developers rather than local taxpayers and pressed council for accountability. He framed his complaint with a rhetorical analogy to criminal intent, saying inconsistent application of rules should not be tolerated.
Council member Lewis responded during council comments: "I thought mister Shann had had some sage comments, although I don't necessarily agree with his metaphor or analogy. I think he raises a salient point." The exchange did not include a recorded staff clarification or subsequent council direction to review the ordinance text or the referendum denial.
Status and next steps: The public comment was recorded on the meeting record; no motion or formal action addressing Shanahan's allegations was recorded during the meeting. If residents seek review of the ordinance versions or the referendum decision, follow-up would require staff research and possible agenda placement for a future meeting.
