Photos
Pdfs
The struggle persists over the relocation of a historic Kent house to a cherished piece of greenspace.
Kent attorney John Plough, representing members of the group Save the Standing Rock Garden, who oppose the relocation of the Kent Wells Sherman House to 247 N. Water St., has filed an objection to a magistrate's decision in the court case about the issue.
In December Portage County Magistrate Kent Graham denied three injunction requests made by Save the Standing Rock Garden in an effort to stop the relocation of the house to the lot, which has been used — but not owned — for decades by members of neighboring Kent arts group Standing Rock Cultural Arts.
Plough had asked the court for injunctions in November against the Kent Wells Sherman House Inc., board — the group trying to relocate the house — and the Kent Architectural Review Board and Kent Planning Commission — both of which cast votes approving the relocation — to try and stop the house from being set on the greenspace.
In his objection, Plough argues that the magistrate erred on five points, including:
- Misconstruing a change in the site plan for the relocation project as new evidence that permitted a second review by the planning commission;
- Accepting a city employee's interpretation of state law rather than making his own determination;
- Permitting two members of the architecture board to vote on the issue despite conflicts of interest;
- Finding the city complied with Ohio Sunshine Laws regarding public notice of the architecture board meeting about the house relocation;
- And failing to allow rebuttal testimony by Save the Standing Rock Garden during the preliminary hearing, which spanned several days.
As part of the objection, filed Dec. 20, Plough asked the court for an oral hearing to present additional evidence in the case.
No such hearing has yet been scheduled, according to court records.
North Canton attorney J. Michael Gatien, on behalf of Kent Wells Sherman House Inc., filed a response Jan. 7 asking the court to dismiss the case on the grounds Plough's objection includes no new arguments that weren't already heard during the preliminary hearings.
"All of the foregoing (arguments) are identical to the administrative appeal and have been decided," Gatien wrote.
For now, the house remains in its temporary spot at the dead end of East College Avenue, land owned by Kent State University, where it was moved in August. It was moved to stave off demolition so construction could start on the Esplanade expansion.
The house sat there under threat of a Dec. 1, 2012, demolition date if it were not moved from that temporary location.
But university officials have said they will not make a decision on razing the house until the court case has concluded and, instead, prefer to aid in its relocation to a permanent site.
City building officials have yet to issue permits allowing construction of a foundation or other elements necessary to move the house to the lot at 247 N. Water St., which is owned by Kent Wells Sherman House, Inc.
Editor's note — Clarification: Standing Rock Cultural Arts is not a direct party to this lawsuit. It's board of directors voted not to become involved in the court action.
Miss Tia
10:38 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
STILL? Seriously? Standing Rock was basically SQUATTING on that land! It's not like they owned it! How about Standing Rock move to a larger location if they need it? Or maybe they should have bought that lot?
Jim Williams
11:24 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
What a colossal waste of the court's time.
Game
11:31 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Imagine. A Portage County Magistrate getting something wrong!
Dale Pudloski
11:48 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
If attorney Plough loses (likely) IF another hearing is granted, perhaps he could get the Hare Krishna to come dance and play their tambourines on the property!
Traci Monroe
3:13 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Plough is only trying to protect the trees, you know he would like to prevent all property owners from cutting down trees, he loves the trees!!
Mars
3:42 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
“A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people. ”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt
Trees are the answer.
“What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt tried to stop the practice of having Christmas trees out of concern about the destruction of forests.
Mars
3:44 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
On April 8, 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt, attired in a dark suit and top hat, could be found in Fort Worth, Texas, where youngsters looked on from a nearby window as he shoveled soil over the roots of a sapling. It was Arbor Day, which schools across the nation had recently begun commemorating, and the ever vigorous president was demonstrating his hands-on love of trees. For Roosevelt, Arbor Day was no publicity stunt. In an address to America’s schoolchildren a couple of years later, he celebrated “the importance of trees to us as a Nation, of what they yield in adornment, comfort, and useful products.” He saw trees as vital to the country’s well-being: “A people without children would face a hopeless future; a country without trees is almost as hopeless.”
WOMAN WITH VALUES
3:48 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
the house is moving to North Water and everyone knows this. These lawsuits have become huge time and resource wasters for the city and the University and are only helping soil the name of the Standing Rock. I don't care if their board claims they aren't proceeding...this lawsuit has their names all over it...and they will be getting new neighbors very shortly
Dr. Anarchy Clown PHD
4:57 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
hey sally, what's up?
i love doughnuts
5:01 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
and "woman with values" has your name all over it, sally. nice try.
Mars
5:16 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Another brand new face to patch? Sally, perhaps?
WOMAN WITH VALUES
5:29 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
This has gone on long enough!!!!!! Remove these sanctions and let's get this house moved back on Water Street. Many in the community support this and this includes the city and the majority of the University community. This house is more than 150 years old and built by the Kent family. The people trying to bring this down don't support the history behind this and there are plans in place to make the house a community center for all including the good children of this community. The ones against this are the same ones who support the NRA and voted for Mitt Romney.
i love doughnuts
6:53 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
it's so much fun watching you return to the patch with a new name and then watch you instantly reveal your identity, sally. seriously, i love it as much as i do doughnuts. but please explain how you link non-supporters of this relocation to being NRA-supporting, mitt romney voters???
Mars
3:59 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
I am not a member of the NRA and I did not vote for Mittens. Your insults make my heart swoon.
Good children? I believe plenty of children would rather play in the yard than be stuck in a small dank old house.
Matt Fredmonsky
5:53 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Please stick to the issue, which is the proposed relocation of the Wells Sherman House.
Dr. Anarchy Clown PHD
8:18 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
c'mon guys, matt doesn't like discussions in the comments section... let's stick to blind praise!
Chris (Kit) Myers
4:51 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
"Gaslight is the Answer to a Peaceful Life."
Balertwine
12:22 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
The Planning Commission violated the law by approving a plan 10' - 15' away from the sidewalk after having denied a plan 10' - 15' feet away from the sidewalk less than one year earlier. KWSH's first plan, 10' -15' from the sidewalk, was denied by the Planning Commission in July. By law, their plan could not be resubmitted within one year. KWSH's second plan, the 16" plan, submitted a short time later, was a farce from the outset, and KWSH even admitted it in a Kent Patch article earlier in 2012. KWSH never had any intention of putting that house 16" from the sidewalk, and they would have soiled their pants if their 16" plan had been approved. Their friends on the Architectural Review Board, in a meeting not announced to the public, conveniently amended the 16" plan to the original 10' - 15' before it went to the Planning Commission where, even though new or material evidence was absent, it was approved. KWSH circumvented the law, and even stated ahead of time of their intent to circumvent the law in the Kent Patch, by submitting a bogus 16" plan only to get their foot in the door, only to avoid the 1-year resubmission rule. This was a purposeful, public corruption of the legal process, and all involved in this conspiracy -- Fink, KWSH, the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission, and City Council, should hang their heads in shame.
Who in KWSH truly wanted that house for one millisecond to be 16" from the sidewalk? No one. Shame on you.
Balertwine
3:59 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
As if that corruption of the legal process was not enough, the August 2012 Architectural Review Board meeting, in violation of Ohio's Sunshine Law, was not announced to the public. The resultant situation should be of no surprise to anyone -- the meeting was not attended by anyone opposed to the relocation of the KWSH house. This meeting proved to be a place of powerful people not recusing themselves from the decision-making process, though the law clearly states they should have done so.
Should citizens of Kent tolerate such abuse of power, or should they insist that the law be applied fairly and equitably to all?
When members of a board have a conflict of interest, they are required to not comment and not vote on the issue at hand. This isn't a lofty ideal, this is a requirement in the law. This law was violated. (This should not be a comment on a newspaper article, this should be the article itself as a matter of investigative journalism.) "Prior to the discussion of any application, any Board member whose participation would constitute a conflict of interest shall recuse himself/herself from any discussion and subsequent vote on the application." Pretty clear, isn't it? You have a conflict of interest in the case, you stay out of it. You don't talk about it, and you don't vote on it. So why did two members of the Architectural Review Board participate in the discussion?
I can see this as only one thing: a purposeful corruption of the legal process. That's disgusting.
Dr. Anarchy Clown PHD
11:10 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
"patch" does not encourage "investigative journalism"
David Badagnani
9:42 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Where is the investigative journalism on the issues raised just bove?
Mike Reynolds
10:06 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
It is ignorant to think that something 150 years old has real historic significance. It is not like this is some kind of first nation settlement, or some kind of Viking or Egyptian dwelling here in town. There are many houses in similar styles still standing, and in fact this house is not that different than newer dwellings in the area. The Standing Rock Garden is much more important to the culture of Kent.
Mike Reynolds
10:06 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
It would be much more appropriate and culturally sensitive to the vibrant close knit community here to just take a few photos of the KWSH and then dismantle it. Use the historic timbers to make fittings for Ray's (an actual historic landmark) or something useful, or take any actual historic artifacts from the house and put them on display at Kent State as a part of a permanent exhibit on Kent architecture. Who really gains from this besides people who need a better office location downtown? Not families.