Cleveland Hall Appellants Partially Agree With Denison's Request For Partial Modification

Earlier today, the citizen appellants opposed to Denison’s planned modern additions to Cleveland Hall responded to Denison’s request for permission to continue renovation to the inside of the original building.

The appellants agreed with Denison concerning interior renovation but disagreed with further construction on the additions.

On March 25, James Cooper, attorney for Denison University, filed a motion, with exhibits, for partial modification of the March 10, 2008 judgment that caused Denison to suspend all construction at Cleveland Hall. The motion seeks “modification to permit construction to resume so as not to affect the glass addition.”

Mike Crites, Law Director for the Village of Granville, on April 1, 2008, filed a memorandum in support of Denison’s motion to Judge Spahr.

In their contra memorandum responding to Denison’s motion, Appellants wrote they “…continue to desire that Cleveland Hall be preserved and renovated, and have no objection to continued work on the interior of the original building or any work necessary for safety and security of the site. Appellants do not wish to see Denison University suffer unnecessary costs and delays.”

“Throughout this case, the totality of exterior design has been at issue. The glass cube studio may have drawn most of the attention at times in the discussion, but the Granville Village Code requires that the design of all three additions to Cleveland Hall conform with its regulation of the Granville Village Historic District. From the beginning, Appellants’ filings in this Court have referred repeatedly to three modern additions. To allow the construction of two contemporary additions (Office and Foundry) to continue under the requested Partial Modification of Judgment or Partial Stay of Execution would undermine compliance with village law. It would overturn a significant portion of the decision which was sought by Appellants in their efforts to promote compliance.”

“Appellants oppose the attempt by Denison University to continue the construction of two of the three additions to Cleveland Hall as listed in item 2. Continue Work on North Additions (Office and Foundry) of EXHIBIT A. Appellants do not support the granting of permission to work toward the completion of any of the three contemporary additions. Appellants, however, agree to items 1. Proposed Work for Original Cleveland Hall Structure, 3. Proposed Site Utility Work, and 4. Proposed Safety and Protection Work, as listed in EXHIBIT A of Appellee Denison University’s motion.”

Later today, James Cooper filed a response to Appellants’ memorandum in which he tried to defend Denison’s motion.

Click here to view Appellant’s contra memorandum responding to Denison’s motion.

Click here to view Denison’s response to Appellant’s memorandum.

See previous stories on the Cleveland Hall Issue: