[ back ]
What city means gets new definition
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - February 22, 2012)
What city means gets new definition
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Residents questioned Monday whether the city of Chardon was changing the rules of the game as planning officials prepared to revise a definition that is at the center of a lawsuit.
"It's a real sneaky way of getting around this," North Street resident William Hess told the city's planning commission.
The commission denied that changing the definition of a public safety facility in the city code is in response to a lawsuit filed in December by residents surrounding the planned service garage at 501 N. Hambden St. (Route 6).
According to residents opposing the plan, the city is overspending for the proposed $4.6 million complex, and it is inappropriate in their neighborhood. The code allows for safety facilities in residential areas.
The commission recommended the change in definition to City Council by a 5-1 vote. Commission member Andrew Blackley, who voted against the measure and has consistently voted against the service garage project, said the city's definition of a public safety facility is a poor fit for the service garage.
Council is to address the measure at its March meeting.
Chardon Law Director James Gillette said the city is merely expanding the definition to better address its intent. He said there has been a tendency to interpret the definition as including only police and fire facilities.
He said the city's definition of a public service facility was intended to address such utilities as waste-water treatment plants, power substations and gas lines. He said a review of surrounding communities showed that their definitions of public service facilities are similar to Chardon's.
Mr. Gillette also said the city has the authority to ignore its own zoning rules. The city passed a measure in the 1970s, giving it that authority, and the Ohio Supreme Court has upheld such actions, he said.
But Mr. Blackley said he reviewed the Ohio Revised Code dealing with public safety facilities and could find no references to street maintenance in it. The city is proposing a "semi-industrial operation," he said. "I don't think it has a place in a residential neighborhood."
North Hambden Street resident Rebecca Cole said the city's proposed revised definition is too broad and would give it virtually limitless authority to include anything it deems necessary.
She asked officials not to change the definition and allow the lawsuit to proceed on its own merits. She said changing the rules isn't fair.
Attorney Randy Klammer, representing residents in their suit, said the city is taking a "dangerous" position in changing its code to fit one particular circumstance. He said the city should put the measure to a vote of the people, because it essentially would be changing the zoning for the area. "It won't solve the other problems it creates," he said.
Mr. Gillette said residents who are opposed to the project are using "hyper-technical legal arguments" to make their case. The city's code allows the project as a conditional use in a residential area, as it does golf courses and churches, he said.
Steven Yaney, Chardon's planning and zoning administrator, said the city has revised its code four times since a comprehensive revision was done in January 2011.
Planning commission chairman Kenneth Miller said he believes the change in definition is better than using the city's sovereign powers to avoid following its own zoning code. "I see it as a far less insidious thing to do than for council to exempt itself from any and all regulations," he said.
City Council President Philip King, who serves on the planning commission, said people tend to find fault with anything that city officials do. He said the definition revision is a "very simple change."
"I think the citizens' narrative is factually incorrect," Mr. King said. The city is acting within its authority and is acting properly in the matter, he said.
[ back ]
