North Olmsted residents unhappy with proposed Biddulph House property development – Cleveland.com

Report on Proposed North Olmsted Residential Development and Sustainable Community Goals

Project Overview and Alignment with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

A development proposal by Sommers Real Estate Group for North Olmsted, Ohio, presents a case study in balancing urban growth with sustainable development principles. The project’s alignment with several targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11, is central to its evaluation.

• Project Scope: The construction of 40 to 50 new townhome units on a six-acre parcel located behind the historic Biddulph House.
• Economic Impact: Units are targeted for the mid-$400,000 price range, indicating a significant investment in the local housing market.
• SDG 11.4 (Protecting Cultural Heritage): A key component of the proposal is the developer’s commitment to preserve and restore the 100-year-old Biddulph House. Municipal staff have recommended that any potential approval be conditioned on this preservation, directly supporting the goal of safeguarding cultural heritage.
• SDG 11.7 (Access to Green Spaces): The planned density of the project is intended to allow for the inclusion of greenspace, a critical element for creating sustainable and livable urban environments.

Stakeholder Engagement and Participatory Planning (SDG 11.3 & SDG 16.7)

The proposal has initiated a public discourse involving multiple stakeholders, highlighting the importance of Target 11.3 (inclusive and sustainable urbanization) and Target 16.7 (responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making).

1. Resident Opposition: A significant number of local residents have voiced opposition, primarily focused on protecting the Butternut Ridge Road historic district. Concerns have been raised that even a small portion of the development within the 300-foot historic boundary, as well as the impact of the adjacent construction, compromises the integrity of this irreplaceable cultural asset.
2. Community Mobilization: In response, residents have activated a homeowners’ group, displayed signs, and collected petition signatures. This civic engagement is a fundamental aspect of the participatory planning process envisioned in the SDGs.
3. Municipal Role: The North Olmsted Director of Economic and Community Development, Max Upton, has affirmed the city’s procedural obligation to facilitate the application process for any applicant. The city acknowledges receipt of resident feedback and recognizes the legitimacy of concerns regarding the impact of new housing on existing infrastructure.

Governance, Process, and Future Outlook

The project is currently navigating the city’s formal review process, which reflects the institutional frameworks necessary for achieving sustainable development outcomes.

• Procedural Status: A scheduled Planning Commission meeting to discuss the required zoning was postponed at the applicant’s request to submit additional documentation. The matter is tabled for a future meeting.
• Regulatory Framework: The development is subject to the regulations and design guidelines of the local historic district. The city’s planning and landmarks commissions are part of a “very rigorous process” to evaluate the proposal.
• Decision-Making Authority: The final decision regarding any zoning change rests with the City Council, ensuring that the ultimate outcome is subject to a vote by elected representatives, in line with the principles of representative decision-making under SDG 16.

Synthesis of Sustainable Development Challenges

The North Olmsted townhome proposal encapsulates a common challenge in urban development: achieving a balance between competing sustainability objectives.

• Balancing economic growth and housing development with the imperative of SDG 11.4 to protect and safeguard cultural heritage.
• Implementing SDG 11.3 by fostering an inclusive and participatory planning process that meaningfully incorporates resident feedback into the final decision.
• Ensuring that institutional processes under SDG 16 are transparent, responsive, and capable of mediating the interests of private developers, public authorities, and the local community to foster a sustainable and resilient city.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – This goal is central to the article, which discusses urban development (new townhomes), the importance of protecting cultural heritage (the historic district and Biddulph House), the role of public and green spaces, and the process of urban planning and management involving community participation.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – This goal is relevant through the article’s focus on the governance process. It highlights the importance of inclusive and participatory decision-making, where residents have a voice in local development projects. The structured process involving the Planning Commission, Landmarks Commission, and City Council demonstrates the institutional framework for managing such disputes.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.3: “By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.” The article directly reflects this target by detailing the conflict between a development proposal and community interests. The entire process described—from the developer’s application to the residents’ opposition (“activate our homeowners group, post signs and collect petition signatures”) and the city’s facilitation of the process—is an example of human settlement planning in action. The city official’s comment that resident feedback is an “important part of the process” underscores the participatory aspect.
   • Target 11.4: “Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.” This target is explicitly addressed. The residents’ primary concern is protecting the “irreplaceable part of the city,” specifically the historic district. As resident Bob Sharp states, “The residents of this area and beyond want this historical district protected.” Furthermore, the developer has “committed to preserving and restoring the 100-year-old house as part of the overall development,” which is a direct effort to safeguard cultural heritage.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The article provides a clear example of this target. The residents are actively participating in the decision-making process through organized opposition and petitions. The city government, in turn, has a “very rigorous process” involving the planning and landmarks commissions, and acknowledges the residents’ role, stating, “The residents are giving us feedback, which we love.” The final decision rests with the elected City Council, which represents the community, further aligning with this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not mention official quantitative SDG indicators, but it implies several qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• For Target 11.3 (Participatory Planning): An implied indicator is the existence and functioning of a formal process for public participation in urban planning. The article describes this process, including public meetings (“North Olmsted Planning Commission meeting”), the submission of documentation for review, and the active engagement of community groups (“homeowners group”). The city’s stated responsibility “to facilitate the process” serves as a measure of its capacity for participatory management.
• For Target 11.4 (Heritage Protection): An implied indicator is the implementation of policies and actions to protect cultural heritage. The article points to this through the mention of “regulations and design guidelines” for the historic district. A more direct indicator is the developer’s commitment to “preserving and restoring the 100-year-old house,” which was recommended as a condition for approval by city staff. The residents’ actions to “collect petition signatures” also serve as an indicator of community-led efforts to safeguard heritage.
• For Target 16.7 (Inclusive Decision-Making): An implied indicator is the proportion of the population that believes decision-making is inclusive and responsive. While not measured, the article demonstrates the mechanism for this. The residents’ ability to organize, voice concerns, and have those concerns be part of the official process (“an important part of the process”) is a strong indicator of a participatory system. The fact that the project is “not by any means a done deal” and requires a final vote from the City Council indicates a responsive institutional structure.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cleveland.com