Council Takes No Action On Cleveland Hall Appeal
At the end of its long meeting tonight, Mayor Melissa Hartfield and Councilperson Jackie O'Keefe recused themselves and the remaining council voted to enter executive session to confer with the Law Director "concerning a matter that is the subject of pending court action."
The Law Director, Michael Crites was ill and Assistant Law Director, Jim Gorry met with Council instead.
The five council members conferred in private for several minutes and then invited Denison University's Vice President, Seth Patton and Denison's attorney, James Cooper to join them.
After about 10 minutes, the Denison people left. On leaving, Seth Patton stated that he had no comment - that President Knobel's comments earlier in the week were sufficient.
Council continued to deliberate for another 10 or 15 minutes.
Finally the public was permitted to return to Council chambers and the regular meeting resumed. After a brief discussion on the scheduling of a work session to consider the Gateway zoning legislation, Council adjourned the meeting.
When asked, Councilman Steve Mershon stated that no action had been taken and that Council would consider the issue again at its next meeting in two weeks.
Village Manager, Don Holycross confirmed that Council took no action and that any such action must be taken during a public meeting.
On June 6, 2007, Village Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Denison's proposal to construct modernist additions onto Cleveland Hall within the village's historic district. Council, by a 3 to 2 vote with 2 members recusing themselves, voted to uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
Three Granville residents, John Thornborough, Dennis Cauchon , and James Jung, appealed that decision to the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. After a lengthy trial, Judge Jon Spahr ruled on March 10, 2008 that the Planning Commission and the Village Council had erred. Spahr reversed their decision and construction on the project came to a halt.
Spahr concluded, "For the reasons set forth above, appellants' first assignment of error is SUSTAINED, and the decision of the Council of the Village of Granville is REVERSED."
Denison's president, Dale Knobel has called for the Village to join Denison in an appeal of Spahr's decision. Such an appeal would be heard before the three-judge Court of Appeals of the Fifth District. Spahr has rarely, if ever, been overturned on appeal.
Work on the $14 million Cleveland Hall project remains halted since Judge Spahr's March 10, 2008 decision.
See previous stories on the Cleveland Hall Issue:
Sentinel Poll Trends
I noted on its first day that the poll in the Sentinel trended directly to a 67-33-ish split against appeals of the successful appeal. This trend stopped abruptly after about 70 to 80 votes. After that there was a significant turn-around trend which accelerated today to nearly a shut-out at times.
What does this mean? There are an awful lot of computers in the hands of DU employees and students up on that hill. It's not just about having the art facility as designed. There is a village code...and rule of law. Are these pro-appeal voters really all familiar with the applicable village code provisions? Or, have they just organized to try to influence opinion to get an appeal without looking into the legal details and practical realities? singlepie
It's time for Denison to obey the law
It's time for Denison to redesign the Cleveland Hall additions in accordance with Granville's law and get on with the project.
Denison has been insisting that somehow it is special and has special needs and not subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Well, Judge Spahr said that isn't true.
So, Village Council, let's accept our law and forget about appealing Spahr's decision. Don't waste any more time or money on this. The Planning Commission made a mistake and so did the three of you who voted to uphold the Planning Commission's mistake. Now it's time to stand up and admit you were wrong and get on with the other issues you must deal with.
Do that and we'll respect you for it. Continue this hopeless silly fight, and we'll vote you out of office.
Denison can do whatever it wants, but I think they would be well advised to submit a new design to the Planning Commission. A design that is appropriate for our historic village.
No sense throwing good money after bad
No sense throwing good money after bad.
I know why Dale Knobel wants council to appeal. It would save the university money to have the village pay for most of the legal work (just as the village did at the Court of Common Pleas). It would also give Dale a bit of cover in front of the board of trustees (they are business people and must be beginning to wonder why this was not negotiated out long ago).
But it sounds like council may be realizing that an appeal would be a waste of money. Spahr's decision is well written. Spahr is an intellectual judge. The likelihood of his decision being overturned is near zero.
Dale ought consider whether he wants to spend months at the Court of Appeals and probably even more at the Supreme Court of Ohio, only to almost certainly lose, when he could just come to the table, negotiate something that fits in the zoning code, and get his building done.
wasted money
Lets not compound the problem by making another
costly mistake .
Just how many thousands of dollors have to be spent here ?
Invest the money in the ground. In utility improvments .
Road paving etc .
Correct the problem and move on .