ThisWeek CW 04/12/2012
Any plans for the future use of the former Davis Paints property at 45 E. Waterloo St. appear to be stymied, at least for the moment, by a lawsuit and a request for a temporary injunction to keep the structure now on the site from being torn down.
Canal Winchester resident Patrick Shea told Canal Winchester City Council’s finance committee on April 2 he was suing The Guernsey Bank for breach of contract. He has also sought a temporary injunction in Franklin County Common Pleas Court to keep the existing building from being razed.
He provided documents to committee showing that he had entered into a contract with The Guernsey Bank on Feb. 10 to buy the property. The court documents include a letter from the bank, terminating the contract on Feb. 27.
Bob McDorman, a collector of automobile memorabilia and former longtime owner of a local car dealership, told city officials March 5 that he wanted to buy the property and construct a 22,000-square-foot building there to house a car museum, the Ed Jeffers Barber Museum and space for the Canal Winchester Area Historical Society. McDorman said at the time he wouldn’t know until March 31 if he could complete the purchase because another buyer was also interested.
The bank, which still owns the property, has applied for a permit to demolish the existing building. And that’s when the situation became complicated at the city level.
Normally, demolition applications involving sites in Canal Winchester’s designated historic or preservation areas are reviewed by the city’s Landmarks Commission. Appeals of any Landmarks’ decisions are heard by city council.
City development director Lucas Haire said the majority of Canal Winchester City Council members and three of the six Landmarks Commission members have some kind of tie to either the property on West Waterloo Street, the historical society or the barber museum. According to Haire, that creates a conflict of interest, in the opinion of the city’s law director.
In an effort to avoid that conflict, the city staff presented an ordinance to council’s fiance committee April 2 that would revoke the right of council or the Landmarks Commission to review the demolition application from The Guernsey Bank.
The finance committee declined to send the ordinance to the full council for a vote, but not before considerable discussion.
The proposed ordinance would have given the Canal Winchester Planning and Zoning Commission final review of the demolition application. And because it would take away city council’s right to review, only a court appeal could overturn a decision by Planning and Zoning.
“I think this is almost under- handed, and I’d be very curious as to the origin of this ordinance, since it would take away a citizen’s right to appeal to an elected committee,” Shea said.
Landmarks Commission member Patrick Lynch said he thought the conflict of interest argument was insufficient. “We live in a small town. You guys (city council) are all elected and I’m in an appointed position because we get involved and there isn’t much that goes on that we don’t have our fingers in,” Lynch said.
“I believe the process should be followed, not just for the little guys but for the big guys, too.”
Brent Foley, another Landmarks Commission member and an architect at TRIAD Architects, disagreed with Lynch.
“I’ve volunteered my and my firm’s services to help with the barbershop museum portion of the project, so I want to be known and clear that I have to recuse myself from this,” Foley said.
According to Shea, McDorman has no claims on the prop- erty, and he said city officials should not be taking any action that may injure his purchase.
“I’ve made four offers over the past year and a half and finally came to agreement,” Shea said. “We think it’s a unique location and this is a historic property which is probably one of the oldest structures in the city so why do we want to tear it down?
“I think this is a beautiful historic property that should be restored and repaired and used as commercial with possible residential space,” Shea said.
Resident Michael Stobart said he objected to the proposed ordinance, especially the request that it be voted on as an emergency. That would mean the rules requiring three public readings of the legislation would be suspended to allow a single public reading before a vote.
“It sounds like you’re eithereliminating or changing the appeal process,” Stobart said. “So I want to know what the next step in that process is before you go forward. Many of our ordinances are being passed as emergencies. I would say it presents the opportunity for abuse because the public doesn’t have an opportu- nity to comment.”