06/03/1997 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 6/3/97 removed the barriers and claimed they were a hazard, the city can put them back up and still be shielded by governmental immunity. Governmental immunity can be used as a defense; it is not just legalese. 2) Regarding the Dooling case, Judge Burnside has granted the city's motion for summary judgment. The case is over. 3) A brief and response have been filed in the Fattlar case. 4) A case management conference was held on the declaratory judgment action on Parcel E, which is asking that the zoning be declared unconstitutional. Also a brief was received on the administrative appeal (2506 appeal) from the Planning Commission decision on Parcel E. The city will file a motion to dismiss because we believe that the Planning Commission is not aquasi-judicial body. If it is not, then an administrative appeal does not apply--there is nothing to appeal. The city also filed an action regarding Parcel E to stop the removal of trees. They in turn filed acounter-claim indicating that our tree ordinance is unconstitutional. The city filed a reply to the counter-claim, and the case is currently pending. 5) With respect to the Moran case, a joint management report was filed in the federal case. Also regarding the Moran case, a complaint was filed with HUD claiming that the city discriminated with respect to the fair housing law. Everyone on the Planning Commission was cited, so the city has replied to that complaint and asked the court to consolidate everything and then direct it through us. 6) Two cases will be filed in Rocky River Court involving people who have knocked down trees and/or sheered off fire hydrants. 7) A draft motion for summary judgment in the Moran federal case has been filed. In the Court of Common Pleas, Mr. Moran has filed a 2506 appeal from our denial in the Board of Zoning Appeals. We have indicated that this is unnecessary because Council did grant permission for nine residents, which mooted that case. We are filing a motion to dismiss the Moran case dealing with the appeal from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Nashar asked whether this action would put this case to rest. Mr. Gareau replied that it would not because they have three or four cases active. He does not believe it makes a lot of sense to file an appeal in Common Pleas Court when we have already granted them what they asked for. They are claiming that we have not accommodated them. They want sixteen residents, and they feel we have discriminated against them. We believe we have accommodated them, and that is why we are filing a motion for summary judgment saying there is no dispute in fact and asking the court to dismiss the case. One thing that is very confusing about the case is they never asked for sixteen. The applications filed with the city requested nine residents. They only asked for sixteen after they got involved in litigation. If they want sixteen, they will have to come back and file another application and prove their case. One of the interesting things about this case is the hang-up is not with the City of North Olmsted. The State of Ohio will not grant a license because it is not zoned multi-family. Mr. Limpert commented that perhaps then in the eyes of the state this was more than a reasonable accommodation. Mr. Gareau said that the state has certain rules and regulations and Mr. Moran cannot get by that. He wants the Building Department to certify that it is zoned multi-family so that more than five residents can be accepted. We are not going to certify it because it is not. We've simply substituted that with a letter indicating that the Council has by-passed and granted nine. Mr. Moran will 5