Complaint policy revamp

Chairman Storlie

Isn't it interesting that Chairman Storlie told the Planning Commission that the Board had been misinterpreting the Complaint Policy.  He informed them that it was really up to the Board to decide if a complaint had merit.  Then they would decide if a complaint should be followed up on.

Letter dismissing complaint.

The timing of this "discovery" is what interests me most.  You see, it turns out that Supervisor Ceminsky was the object of a complaint regarding the use of his outbuildings.  It was decreed that the complaint had no merit apparently, as stated in this letter that was sent to the person making the complaint (and who will remain anonymous, according to Township policy--at least as long as the Board continues to adhere to that part of the policy).

What do you think?  Does Mark Ceminsky run his construction business out of his home and not his outbuildings, as Township rules require?  If he is using his outbuildings for this business endeavor, that is in violation of the ordinances.  These rules are being enforced with others in the township by the current board.

Reprinted below for your consideration is the text of the original complaint.  You decide.  Did it have enough merit to at least be followed up upon by a NEUTRAL party like the Building Inspector?
________________________________________________________________________________

With recent, stepped up enforcement of the home occupation ordinance, it would be hypocritical for our Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission members to be in violation this ordinance.  They should conduct their businesses so that they are above suspicion.

I request that the building inspector view the contents of accessory use structures (including the temporary storage building) at the home of Supervisor Ceminksy to make sure that Beaver Creek Construction http://www.beavercreekco.com/ does not operate out of, or store equipment in, his accessory use structures.  If this were the case, it would be in clear violation of the ordinances as they are being enforced against other residents and potential buyers.

Over the past few years, there has been an expansion outdoor storage at the home of Supervisor Ceminsky.  The company website does not give a specific street address but it has a Farmington city address.  Mr. Ceminsky advertises his work , that is, that the landscaping was done by him, with signs at his property.  Many companies do this immediately after a project is completed.  But if the sign is permanent it requires a permit and a broader discussion about its legitimacy.  Mr. Ceminsky parks a business trailer outside his accessory building with the company name on it in a way that makes it visible to passers by.  The Township has had discussions on this in the past.  Does it constitute advertising or is it inadvertent?  How can we make the distinction? 

Mr. Ceminsky’s company’s business is remodeling, construction and landscaping, according to his website.  It is possible that everything he uses is contained within the trailer , but this seems unlikely.  Unidentified materials outside his temporary structure (beams of some sort) appear to be related to the business, as do some pieces of equipment that sometimes parked outside his buildings.

It is confusing to residents who are trying to abide by the ordinances when they see Supervisors and Planning Commission members skirting or violating the ordinances they have been elected to enforce. 

Photo of temporary structure, accessory use building and trailer at the Ceminsky residence.

Not included here, but part of the original complaint, were a series of historic airphotos showing an expansion of the use at this site under the ownership of Mr. Ceminsky.