Two River Bend property owners continue their fight against plans for a 12-space parking lot to serve as on the Cuyahoga River.
Jim and Diana Sumner filed appeals Tuesday in Portage County Common Pleas Court asking the court to overturn variances granted to the Kent Parks and Recreation Department that pave the way for construction of the parking lot and pathway down to the river on park land.
The , then the Kent Board of Building Appeals. The Kent Planning Commission then to permit the project.
The variances pertained to building the 12-space parking lot within 100 feet of the right-of-way for River Bend Boulevard and establishing the park within the flood plain of the Cuyahoga River.
The Sumners live across the river from the park's six acres, but the property lines — which run down the middle of the river — abut each other.
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 said boat launches are not permitted uses in residential districts.
The evolution of the plans for the 6-acre site throughout the years would seem to support Spoonster's argument. The parks department has repeatedly scaled down plans — in response to residents' concerns — to eliminate restroom and picnic facilities, remove a dock, reduce the number of parking spaces and lower the lighting.
Kent Parks and Recreation Director John Idone said previously all those reductions were made to lessen the impact of the park on the neighborhood while still serving primarily as an access point for canoe and kayak launching on the Cuyahoga River.
The Sumners are apppealing the decisions of all three boards; the planning commission, zoning board and building board. The appeals were first filed with the court last week. No hearings have yet been scheduled.
Why don't they have a boat launch up behind Oak Knolls. Oh, I know it is out of the city limits--always some excuse.
1.) The city (the citizens or an ancillary department) has a good idea 2.) The idea is pursued and developed (sometimes even funded) 3.) The majority of citizens are behind the plan and proud of the city (citizens or ancillary department) for pursuing funding to execute the plan in a fiscally responsible way 4.) A few naysayers set out to destroy the plan 5.) The city reacts as if a nuclear bomb has been set on the plan although the vast majority of citizens remain positive or indifferent to the plan 6.) What remains of the plan after the minority speaks barely resembles the initial idea that, in its original form, was excellent in scope, design and funding, OR the plan is scuttled altogether Result = Kent continues to be known only for Kent State University rather than art, recreation, dining and entertainment. @ Pat: If we don't build or do anything in Kent that ranks notably with Kent State University, KSU will continue to rule the fate of our city. A city park with adequate parking spaces will have far LESS impact on the Riverbend community than a boat launch with inadequate parking. By scuttling their original plan, Kent Parks and Rec has put themselves in a position to try to argue otherwise.
Beyond this tiny little plot of land, consider a couple of points regarding parks in general: Establishing parks and recreational land uses typically increases property values, and - re: Pat's comment above - Kayakers and people who visit parks, for the most part, aren't loud litterbugs. In fact, most folks who visit parks regularly pack a bag to pick up any trash they find along the way, and are the first to volunteer to fix any problems or patrol and report any potential trouble.
Ms. Hurst, I would think that a park that closes at dusk would be an asset to the neighborhood, but... I don't live there. I am just a guy who grew up in a house on a 60 x 140 city lot and have never had any desire in isolating myself from outside human activity. I guess when you dump a bunch of money in a piece of real estate, you can start to feel very protective of it... maybe a touch overprotective. But, to each his own. My dad once told me that if you have a vacant lot next door and you are worried about what someone will build on it, buy the lot! A boat launch? Well, while I am a firm believer that noone should be able to own property down to major waterways, lakes, or the ocean, or to be able to prevent or make it difficult for the public to have access, I think a boat launch in a residential neighborhood, may be a little much. If someone is willing to carry a canoe on a car, walk it down to the river, shove it in the water, and paddle off down the river, that is a different story. Yes, while Kent State is a wonderful asset in that it provides an exposure to the fine and performing arts to the citizens of Kent, and has some excellent departments, it is always wise to be constantly wary of the motives of a giant, any giant, in one's midst.
@ Kit: Yes! In my opinion the original plan was an asset in every way. The vast majority of citizens are either adamantly for it or indifferent to it. A few residents who have an illegitimate complaint (since they knew the property was owned by Kent Parks and Rec but chose to live there and NOT to sell at top market value) have endangered this plan.
Chris- The boat ramp may or may not be allowed according to the law in that area. However The Department of Parks and Rec does not think. They are run by a dictactor and a spinless board. They don't care how they waste the State of Ohio grant money. They don't care if the ramp is allowed or not. They will put it there and make you sue to stop them.
Chris- Like you said most people who want to launch a canoe or kayak at that location have been doing so for years without a problem. They did not need a lighted parking lot. Kent State does have its place in the community but as of the last few years they have over stepped their mission and are killing small busniess. Kent and the Department of Parks and Rec have a motive and agenda for river recreation. When you are paying to launch in the future or to even paddle a portion of the river because they created some BS Whitewater park people will wonder what happen.
I doubt it would be an issue in a City that takes good care of the parks. However the director of the park department does not. For example last week when I took my lunch breaks in Tannery Park .I saw the same trash can overflowing with trash. The trash was all over the park and looked terrible. If they can't even keep the parks clean in the winter how will the keep up in the summer. Residents in Riverbend have good reason to be concerned about their new neighbor.