CLEVELAND — “We have been told that the planned format for this hearing is for a presentation by OEPA or the City, then a “brief” question and answer period, then public comment. However, given the many complexities of this proposal, the brief time citizens have had to review it, and the many unanswered questions, we believe a different format should be used.
We propose that this meeting be used for a presentation by the permit applicant, followed by an on-the-record question and answer session, where community residents and all interested parties can ask questions. People cannot be expected to comment on a proposal where there has been no record of public meetings previously about this project held within neighborhoods and communities that would be impacted by this proposed facility. To clarify, we know of only one public meeting held for residents that live within a mile or so of the site. The promotion of that meeting was limited and fewer than 10 residents participated.
Once answers to questions raised on Monday are received, OEPA should schedule a second public meeting, which would include both clarifying questions and answers and an official public comment portion. In addition, the public comment period should be extended beyond the current date of January 23, 2012 as there will be more time needed to ensure adequate public notice is provided for a second meeting.”
— Brian J. Cummins, Cleveland City Council, Ward 14, letter to Scott Nally, Ohio EPA