03/18/1997 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 3/18/97 ~ 4) On behalf of the city, Administrative Assistant Eric Hensal applied for and has been awarded an $11,500 grant to assist the city in recycling efforts. The grant will be used for the city's WEB pages to educate citizens, answer their questions and to inform them about various pick-ups of household hazardous waste. 5) On May 8, the city will host a meeting at Springvale of the Greater Cleveland Suburban Council Association. This is a good organization and gives council members from the metropolitan area a chance to network and share ideas. Mayor Boyle has been invited to speak at the meeting about the city's recent passage of the "sweatshop" ordinance. Mrs. Saringer and Mr. O'Grady are members of this organization. Law Director Gareau: 1) On March 7, the city had a hearing before the hearing officer appointed by the Court of Appeals regarding the Fattlar case. Mayor Boyle, former Mayor Petrigac, Safety Director Kasler and Tom Fattlar testified at the hearing. The hearing officer will make findings of fact because there were only certain factual issues that were in dispute. At the same time, Mr. Fattlar's attorney had filed a brief on the law, which the city Law Department felt was inappropriate. However, a reply brief has been filed. 2) The city has been served with two lawsuits involving the Moran issue. The suits deal with the request for a group home at the Moran residence on Dover Center Road. Ohio law provides for five individuals in a group home for the mentally handicapped located in a single family residential district. However, if the area is zoned for multi-family, you can have up to nine residents. The State of Michigan has a similar law. The special permit for the group home was first heard in the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission sent the request to the Board of Zoning Appeals which had to deal with the height (of the home) and the distance of the driveway between the side yard and the building. The request was denied by the BZA, and it did not go back to the Planning Commission. An administrative appeal was filed from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Also, a complaint was filed in federal court claiming that the city is discriminating against the handicapped under the Fair Housing Act of 1988. The Law Director has attempted to contact the attorney for the plaintiff to discuss going back to the Planning Commission to resolve the issue since the state licensing law does provide for fixed numbers but the federal law does not set limits but only says you must make reasonable accommodations. A case out of the Sixth Circuit talks about the provisions for nine residents and reasonable accommodation as it relates to the ability to make a profit. If an individual were restricted to six residents and could not make a profit, then that would be unreasonable. In the Michigan case, it was found that nine was reasonable and a profit could be made. The Law Director feels this issue should be taken back before the Planning Commission for further consideration. Unfortunately, when the applicant first filed, the city was told they were going to have five residents and then nine residents and then the lawsuit said eighteen. The city needs to determine exactly what the plans are. Also, the city was never really sure that we were dealing with a group home for the mentally handicapped. We were originally told that the home was for adult individuals who were going to live in a home setting but it was not indicated that they were handicapped. The Law Director would like to take this issue back to the Planning Commission as opposed to having it proceed in the federal court where we obviously are exposed to damages. 2