[ back ]
Neighbors to fight city hall in court
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - January 04, 2012)
Neighbors to fight city hall in court
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Residents opposed to the city of Chardon's proposed service garage complex have taken their fight to the courtroom.
They filed an appeal last week in Geauga County Common Pleas Court, challenging the city planning commission's approval last month of the project.
The planning commission approved a concept plan, a conditional-use permit and two zoning variances for the estimated $4.8 million project that is to include a 13-bay service garage, salt-storage building, unheated storage building and a site for snow storage. The is planning the project on an 8.46-acre site at 499 N. Hambden St.
"A service garage is neither a permitted, conditional, nor is permitted with supplemental conditions use within an R-2 (residential) district," according to the appeal.
Although the suit names residents bordering the proposed site, John Dutton, of Downing Drive, and George Baker, of North Hambden Street, as plaintiffs, they are not alone in the fight.
Thomas Cole, of North Hambden Street, who has been a leading opposition voice, said last week that the suit is a joint venture of all residents on Downing Drive, North Hambden Street and Chardon Avenue. He said they plan to share the expense of the litigation.
City Manager Randal Sharpe said the city has no comment on the lawsuit at this time.
Residents have expressed objections to the proposed project from the start of formal hearings on it by the city. They have said the project is inappropriate for an exclusively residential neighborhood and would bring noise and bright lights.
The appeal, filed by Mentor attorney Joseph R. Klammer, focuses on whether the proposed service garage should fall under the city's definition of a public safety facility or public service facility. The planning commission approved the project, using the definition of public safety center.
"It should almost go without saying that a safety facility is something quite different than a service facility," according to the appeal.
The appeal notes that the city charter distinguishes between the two, listing a department of public service and separate one for public safety.
"The distinction between the roles of these two departments is undeniable," the appeal says. "A service garage serves the department of public service, not the department of public safety," it says. "A safety facility is not a garage to store service department equipment, supplies, road salts, mulch and the like -- that is a service facility."
The appeal says the city's code lists a public safety facility as a facility "for the public safety and emergency services, including, but not limited to, a facility that provides police or fire protection and related administrative services.
"With that, there should be no debate that the service garage proposed is simply not a 'public safety facility,'" it says.
According to the appeal, even if the proposed complex were to be considered a public safety facility, it does not meet the city's code for such a use. Such facilities must serve only the "immediate surrounding area," it says, while the proposed complex would serve the entire city and fails to meet the city's code requirement.
In addition, the appeal says, the city failed to demonstrate that the variances granted for the project were necessary to prevent a practical hardship.
[ back ]
