The Mentor-on-the-Lake City Council meeting on November 26, 2024, featured a heated discussion regarding the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) program and its recent amendments. A resident, Jason Morris, expressed his frustrations over the denial of his application for CRA benefits related to a garage he constructed on his property. Morris, who previously received CRA approval in 2020, argued that the city’s updated regulations unfairly excluded his project, which he classified as an outbuilding rather than a residential dwelling.

Morris detailed his timeline, stating that he received the necessary zoning permit in August 2023 and completed the garage by July 2024. He applied for CRA benefits in November but was denied due to a recent amendment that removed exemptions for new residential construction. Morris contended that his garage should qualify for the program, citing outdated information on the city’s website that he believed misled applicants.

During the meeting, council members discussed the intent behind the CRA amendments, which aimed to prevent builders from exploiting the program to increase housing prices. Council President Rob Johnson clarified that the council's goal was to eliminate new residential dwellings from the CRA, not to exclude additions or outbuildings. This distinction sparked further debate about the interpretation of the ordinance and the potential need for clarification in future regulations.

Morris expressed concern that the current administration of the CRA program could lead to unfair denials for residents, suggesting that legal representation might be necessary for those affected. He also requested that his case be appealed to the Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council.

The council acknowledged the need for clearer guidelines regarding the CRA program, particularly concerning what constitutes eligible projects. The discussion highlighted ongoing tensions between residents seeking benefits and the city’s efforts to manage the program effectively. As the meeting concluded, the council indicated a willingness to revisit the ordinance to ensure it aligns with their original intent and provides fair access to residents.