Pulte Ranking In Consumer Affairs
Pulte Violation Tracker
Background information
What are the Issues?
How Can You Help?
BOTCHED, BIASED AND BULLIED?
There is so much to unpack after the 12/14/23 decision by the Stow City Council to approve the Millers Landing Development by Pulte. Homeowners left with more questions than answers and the best way to break down the story is by categorizing each section. Botched, biased and bullied are the themes that repeat themselves like a skipping vinyl record.
Through the past year of meetings, valid issues including ordinance violations had been raised to the Planning Commission and Planning Committee which appeared to have either been unheard or ignored. Without a checklist or any standard template, the Planning Commission approved the plans without probing into homeowner’s arguments around cul-de-sac length, residential block dimensions, preliminary plan omissions, water runoff issues, and violation of Stow’s adopted Comprehensive Plan Update. One Planning Commission member even stated that she didn’t like the plan but had to vote for it. During the Planning Committee meeting on December 14, 2023, Council President, Jeremy McIntire, stated that he would have given the Planning Commission an “F” on their handling of the project. This leaves questions about the entire process being botched from the start. The Planning Commission was guided by Law Director, Jamie Syx, and Planning Director Nathan Leppo. Ms. Syx resigned just one week prior to the vote on 12/14/23 and at a Council meeting in November 2023, it was announced that Mr. Leppo was no longer employed by the City of Stow. This announcement came shortly after a letter was written to the mayor describing the stain on the city that this relationship may have caused and the optics around the situation. Rumors swirled that this project was a “done deal” due to the connections that the trustee of the property had with the City of Stow. One of those alleged connections may have been Nathan Leppo, the Planning Director at the time, who is the nephew of the trustee’s husband. Is it possible that Mr. Leppo may have used his influence to assist his relative instead of the taxpayers that paid his salary? Arguments were raised by the homeowners over codes that both the Law Director and Planning Director consistently muddied in favor of the developer. One example is during a 2/14/23 Planning Commission meeting where Mr. Leppo claimed if Stow did not allow this prohibitively long cul-de-sac, “we’d be breaking our own law by not connecting to that land, which is an existing right of way and street with this development.” When questioned how a “temporary” cul-de-sac could last more than 100 years (the northern properties have been platted but undeveloped since 1927), Mr. Leppo responded: “Temporary means if something could happen in the future.” The suggestion that a 1350’ “temporary” cul-de-sac was permitted for any length of time, yet a permanent cul-de-sac with a maximum length of 800’ was absurd. The Stow Law Director supported Mr. Leppo’s position on these topics without explanation and remained quietly engrossed on her two phones during most meetings. A question from a homeowner to the Planning Committee on 12/14/23 was posed asking if the Planning Commission was unaware or omitted pertinent information which would have been reason to deny the initial plan. As with most questions posed to the Planning Committee and Council, no response was provided. A more thorough and scrutinized review of the preliminary plan and codes might have ended the madness; instead, it escalated for 10 additional months.
Brian Loudermilk, Stow City Council member, remained relatively quiet during the year of debate about the Millers Landing development until the last meeting on 12/14/23. He felt a “calling” to research past legislation and emerged with an outdated code from 1975 on Residential Blocks. This outdated and irrelevant code read more favorably to the developer than the current code. Although the code he mentioned was repealed in its entirety in 1979 and again in 2007, he drew a strange connection that somehow, possibly, a clerical error or omission was made to remove the words “long dimension” which no longer appears in the current 2008 code. Even if a clerical error had occurred, the Ohio Revised Code 713.121 states that no action challenging the validity of a zoning ordinance or regulation shall be brought more than two years after the adoption of the ordinance. Again, the latest version is from 2007 (adopted in 2008). That’s 15 years ago, and it was repealed in its entirety, twice. If Loudermilk felt he had stumbled upon a code issue, he certainly did not solicit interpretation from the Law Director during the meetings, and definitely could not have asked for any interpretation when they entered executive session because both the Law Director and the acting Planning Director left the meeting early. I would add one last tidbit. In 2017, the Stow Council voted to approve a business retention grant for Mactac to keep their headquarters and 101 employees in Stow, but Mr. Loudermilk abstained from the vote because it involved his employer. It might seem weird that Loudermilk would try to head to the basement archives and seek out information that would assist the developer, but the twist is that the trustee selling the land happens to be his CFO. If you are wondering if he abstained from the vote on 12/14/23, the answer is a resounding NO. Some might think Loudermilk might have just been doing his job as a Councilman, but Mr. Loudermilk lost his seat in the recent election and after 12/31/23, was no longer a councilman. Others might think that something else was going on; perhaps bias? I’ll allow you to draw your own conclusion.
In the fall of 2022, the mayor of Stow and a couple of councilmen met with concerned homeowners over the proposed development. The mayor and councilmen immediately expressed fear of being sued by Pulte if the project was turned down. Just as predicted, prior to the Council meeting on 12/14/23, Pulte notified all Council Members on Monday, 12/11/23, and informed them that they needed to preserve all communications, emails, and text messages in the event a lawsuit was filed. On 12/13/23, just one day before the Council meeting, notice to sue both Councilmen individually and the City of Stow was issued. Although no vote was mandated on 12/14/23, Pulte made demands to the Council that the vote take place that night, that everyone had ample time to review information and render a decision. It was also mentioned that Pulte would move forward legally the next day with a state and federal lawsuit if the vote was not in their favor. In school systems, there is a no tolerance for bullying, but within the local government of Stow, they rollover like a golden retriever looking for a belly rub. Almost every member of the Council stated their disdain for the threats that Pulte made towards them personally and to the City of Stow, however 5 of the 7 Councilmen voted to approve the project. It’s somewhat understandable, but very sad that threats to drag the Council into a drawn-out lawsuit costing them both time and money might make someone feel forced to vote for a specific outcome. Councilman Dave Licate implied that he was sparing the 33,000 Stow Resident’s a lawsuit in his decision to vote for the development. It’s unfortunate for all involved that these types of threats and what appears to be bullying tend to work, because in the end, it did.
In times when you want to have faith in your government and accountability for right and wrong, you may be faced with quite the opposite outcome. You might think a bad decision was made and yet you are provided no reasonable or rational explanation to justify and support it. You are just told to accept it and take the lumps as they come. I’m sure if you asked the Stow City Council about how they operate, the majority would have a canned reply about their dedication to honor and serve. My question would be to whom?
Care to read what others thought of their experience?
Ripoff Report | Pulte Homes Review - , Internet - Pulte homes brand
Homeowner issues with Pulte Homes (ktnv.com)
Top 394 Pulte Homes Reviews & Experiences | ConsumerAffairs
Pulte New Home Nightmare | Before I Forget (storieswithnobooks.com)
Pulte Charged $13.6 Million in Defect Suit | Builder Magazine (builderonline.com)
3 Homebuilders To Avoid, 1 To Consider Now | Seeking Alpha
Pulte Group | Better Business Bureau® Profile (bbb.org)
Pulte Homes Reviews - Read 140 Genuine Customer Reviews | pulte.com
Pulte Homes settles construction complaint with Florida attorney general (consumeraffairs.com)
Pulte Homes Reviews | Read Customer Service Reviews of pulte.com (trustpilot.com)
Closing issues with Pulte Homes : r/RealEstate (reddit.com)
GA developer facing lawsuit after Florida cemetery flooded (mynews13.com)
‘This is totally unacceptable’: Homeowners frustrated over new home warranties – WFTV
Forsyth homeowners win $2.5 million judgment from builder (ajc.com)
Pulte Home agrees to settlement over defective home construction (realtybiznews.com)
Pulte Homes settles construction complaint with Florida attorney general (consumeraffairs.com)
PulteGroup Allegedly Hid Shoddy Homebuilding And Code Violations (mfi-miami.com)