The Van Wert County Courthouse

Thursday, Mar. 28, 2024

VW Council narrowly rejects zoning appeal

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

After hearing from several concerned area residents opposed to locating Haven of Hope’s homeless facility near a residential area, as well as attorney Joshua Nolan of the law firm of Nolan Law LLC, who represents Haven of Hope, Van Wert City Council narrowly rejected an appeal of a Van Wert Board of Zoning Appeals decision that the facility did not meet the “quasi/semi-public use” definition included in the city’s B-3 (business) zoning classification.

North Market Street resident and business property owner Chris Wilson speaks in opposition to the proposed Haven of Hope homeless facility being located in his neighborhood during Monday evening’s Van Wert City Council meeting. Dave Mosier/Van Wert independent

The vote on the issue was 4-3, with Council members Jeff Agler, Joi Mergy, Andrew Davis, and Joel Penton Sr. voting to reject Haven of Hope’s appeal of the decision and Steve Hellman, Jeff Kallas, and John Marshall voting in favor of overturning the Zoning Board’s decision.

Council members voting to reject Haven of Hope’s appeal said they felt the proposed drop-in homeless center did not fit the quasi/semi-public use definition, with Mergy saying she felt the center fit better as a boarding house, while Penton said he felt the center was more in line with a group home.

“If I look at it purely from a zoning issue, we have boarding house, bed and breakfasts, clinics listed as a conditional use,” Mergy said. “To me, a homeless shelter would fit into more that category than ‘quasi-public use’. I think that’s really stretching it.”

“I believe a facility that allows up to 10 people to stay overnight more closely resembles a group home than it does an institution of philanthropic or non-profit nature,” Penton said of his decision.

Nolan disagreed with both statements, first stating his opinion that Haven of Hope met the quasi/semi-public use definition as a religious, charitable, philanthropic, and non-profit organization. 

He specifically rejected Mergy’s boarding house definition, noting that, to meet that definition, compensation would have to be paid by those staying at the Haven of Hope facility, which was not the case.

“We absolutely do not meet that (boarding house) definition; there is not compensation being provided,” Nolan stated. “You cannot apply just a portion of that definition, you have to apply the law as written.”

The attorney also countered Penton’s notion that the Haven of Hope facility was more like a group home.

“As to the idea that we fall under the [definition] of a group home, that says it’s ‘a residential facility that provides room and board, personal care, rehabilitation services, and supervision in a family setting’,” Nolan said, noting that Haven of Hope was not providing any of those services directly to homeless men who would use the facility.

“The only category that they [Haven of Hope] seem to fall into is a ‘semi-public use’,” the attorney concluded.

The city zoning code defines quasi/semi-public use as “churches, Sunday schools, parochial schools, colleges, hospitals, or other institutions of an educational, religious, charitable, philanthropic, or non-profit nature.

Marshall also spoke in agreement with Nolan.

“I’ve looked at this, I’ve prayed over it, I’ve thought about it, and I still think that you have to stay within the guidelines of what constitutes this group being in a B-3 ‘semi-pubic/quasi-public (usage)’,” the councilman at-large noted. “It is charitable, it is philanthropic, and it is [of] a non-profit nature.”

Those speaking against the homeless facility were led by Market Street resident Chris Wilson and his wife, Jody, who live in the area and also own a business property near the proposed site of the Haven of Hope facility at 233 N. Market St. Those speaking against the Haven of Hope facility, which borders a residential area, targeted what they felt would be the negative impact on its surrounding neighborhood, citing increased crime, health issues, decreased property values, and other problems that could arise from the facility.

With Council’s rejection, Haven of Hope organizers have two options moving forward: either apply for a variance (exception) to the B-3 zoning code or file a lawsuit in Van Wert County Common Pleas Court appealing Council’s decision.

Nolan said applying for a variance would be difficult, since Council members don’t agree on what likely classification the Haven of Hope facility would fall under. Law Director John Hatcher said he would provide a more specific information within 72 hours of Monday’s meeting.

Also Monday, City Council adopted a number of legislative measures, including an emergency resolution authorizing Safety-Service Director Jay Fleming to award contracts for new lift stations, an emergency ordinance authorizing Fleming to advertise for bids and award contracts for the 2020 street painting project, an emergency resolution allowing the city to participate in the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Recreational Trails Program, an emergency ordinance approving preliminary legislation for paving work to be completed on U.S. 127, U.S. 224, Ohio 118, and Ohio 709, and allow Mayor Ken Markward to enter into agreements with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) to further those projects, a resolution authorizing Fleming to negotiate an energy efficiency and infrastructure improvement project with Honeywell International Inc. for a HVAC project at the Municipal Building, a resolution that allows the city to issue municipal bonds to pay for the HVAC project, and an emergency resolution allowing Fleming to bid and award contracts for miscellaneous street paving projects in the city.

Following an executive session, Council also approved a new three-year contract with the Van Wert Fire Department.

During his report, Fleming also noted that the city has been trying to purchase a building at the intersection of Crawford and Market streets to assist with a future Market Street bridge project, but the building’s owner has rejected offers up to $35,000 for the building, which has a fair market value of $16,700. The city will now try to acquire the project under eminent domain procedures, in which the local Common Pleas Court would determine the market value of the property.

The next meeting of Van Wert City Council will be at 6:30 p.m. Monday, March 9, in Council Chambers on the second floor of the Municipal Building, 515 E. Main St.

POSTED: 02/25/20 at 8:14 am. FILED UNDER: News