State Court Upholds Local Ruling on River Bend Park
11th District Court of Appeals says park is not detrimental to neighborhood
The Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals has issued a ruling upholding the decision of a Portage County judge allowing the River Bend Park canoe and kayak access point on the Cuyahoga River.
The state appellate court issued a ruling this month affirming a decision by Portage County Common Pleas Judge John Enlow, who determined in January that the park was not a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood.
The state court ruling stemmed from an appeal filed by Kent residents Jim and Diana Sumner, whose property stands across the river from the park on River Bend Boulevard.
The Sumners filed appeals in February 2011 in Portage County to decisions by the Kent Planning Commission, Kent Board of Zoning Appeals and Kent Board of Building Appeals that gave permission to the Kent Parks and Recreation Department to build the park, which includes 12 parking spaces and an access ramp to the river.
The Sumners' attorney, Joseph Spoonster, argued that the planning commission could not approve the project because it is a boat launch and not a park. Spoonster had argued boat launches are not permitted uses in residential districts.
Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals Judges Diane Grendell and Mary Jane Trapp determined the Sumners' arguments were without merit in upholding Enlow's earlier ruling, and that the Portage court did not "abuse its discretion in finding substantive, reliable and probative evidence to support the planning commission's grant of the conditional zoning certificate" required to build the park, according to court documents.
In his ruling, Enlow wrote that the parks department complied with all applicable laws in proposing, designing and constructing the park, which was finished earlier this year.
"The park's primary use to allow canoe and kayak access to the river perfectly befits its location and the vicinity," according to Portage County court order. "The activities at the park are not hazardous, disturbing, or detrimental to the neighborhood."
Teresa K.
12:24 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
I admit I havent kept up with all the details about the kayak launch. However, I LOVE that the people that live closest tried to protect their neighborhood and I think they should. They are the ones who will live with any fallout.
There used to be a boat dock on Middlebury Rd. a long time ago. Does anyone know why they closed it off? ( it would be over 20 yrs. ago.) I'm wondering if shutting that down would be similar in reasoning to closing down the kayak place?
Donald S
1:01 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
What fallout are you talking about? The area looked like crap before, so much graffiti under that bridge and broken split rail fences. I do not see anybody crying about that. I am happy to hear the Sumners spent a ton of money and got nothing out of it.
Teresa K.
11:58 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
@donald: your comment: "I am happy to hear the Sumners spent a ton of money and got nothing out of it."... I wouldnt be so sure they got nothing out of it.
they learned alot about you.
Mars
3:54 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Wow, many people would feel quite blessed to live next to a park. Knowing the land won't be made into another house or another vacant lot. Shame on you Sumner's. Money can't buy you brains. Good luck shopping around!
By the way, where were you guys at when Baker's towing was invading a residential neighborhood? Just think, the boat launch could be a towing/repair shop with vehicles coming and going 24/7. Complete with beeping tow trucks and diesel exhaust. Count your blessings Sumners. It could be a lot worse...
Max Gilliland
5:38 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Donald you said it all. We will see how many more tons of money they have to throw away by taking it to the supreme court of Ohio!
Donald S
11:50 am on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
they spent thousands of dollars to learn a lot about somebody they do not know or will ever know?