The historic Kent Wells-Sherman House is one step closer to relocating to 247 N. Water St., the site preferred by the non-profit group working to restore the house.
The Kent Architectural Review Board issued a certificate of appropriateness to the Friends of the Kent Wells-Sherman House, Inc., for a site plan that puts the house on the vacant lot between and .
The project's site plan will next go to the Kent Planning Commission for consideration on Sept. 4.
But there's a catch. The architecture board recommended the house be set back between 12 feet and 15 feet from North Water Street.
And the planning commission already voted this summer for that lot that showed the house set back 15 feet from the street.
This is where the issue gets complicated.
Rick Hawksley, a member of the non-profit Kent Wells-Sherman house group, said because the commission rejected the earlier site plan they had to substantially alter the plan before it could be resubmitted for reconsideration.
The substantial change they made was to put the house just 16 inches back from the North Water Street sidewalk.
"We aired on the side of substantial change not knowing how that would be interpreted," Hawksley said. "It would be preferable to have more" of a setback.
Kent Assistant Law Director Eric Fink said city code dictates that a site plan must be different before it can be resubmitted to the planning commission if denied.
"It does not say what is different enough," Fink said.
Several members of the architecture board agreed with Hawksley and said the house would be better suited situated further back from the street.
"I don't think it should be any closer than 10 feet," architecture board member Howard Boyle said. "Even 10 feet is not very long."
So the architecture board's certificate of appropriateness comes with the recommendation that the planning commission approve a site plan with the house set back 12 feet to 15 feet from the street.
Fink said the Friends of the Kent Wells-Sherman House still have to present the altered site plan, showing the house 16 inches from the sidewalk, to the planning commission on Sept. 4.
"But they can say the architectural review board recommended the (larger) set back," he said. "And the planning commission would have to act appropriately."
Previous coverage:
An example of this was in a recent Record Courier article when someone made a suggestion and a KWSH board member suggested that it was hard to respond to because the person could intend “ulterior motives,” which clearly shows a shutdown on the part of any suggestions made by anyone who may be supporting the green space. Suggestions have been made by experts not even affiliated with SRCA for how to save on expenses but no one seems to follow through—except the green space supporters. If information is available and free from experts, it would be very worth checking out instead of disregarding, particularly when in need of finances and on the dole of the taxpayers for a 10 year loan.
So since KWSH didn't have government approval, and still does not have government approval, to relocate the house onto that piece of property, it has been arrogant on the part of KWSH to state over and over in these Patch comments "The house will be relocated onto 247 N. Water St, get used to it." Even KWSH knows this is not necessarily true, otherwise they would have purchased the land outright rather than signing a first option contract.
It should be noted, however, that SRCA is not the only resident of the 257 N Water St complex. There are resident-tenants above the businesses and the Vinyl Underground Record Store in the other half of the building so they would be displaced without a home by this current suggestion. The rents generated by SRCA and the other tenants are most likely of continued interest to Mr. Rhoads (the building owner) as well. I do love the idea of the green space and historic home both being preserved however and hope more dialogues like this occur!
The University's Mr. Tom Euclide told me that he checked with the city and was told that it was not in violation of any Kent codes. Since the City is being so cautious about how the Wells-Sherman house has to sit on Water Street, I find that rather hard to believe. I asked Mr. Euclide how he would like the Mae Prentiss house sitting like that next to his house. He responded, "I wouldn't." According to Mr. Euclide, and contrary to the original University statements that it was going to be moved TEMPORARILY to 214 South Willow (they actually moved it to 220), it is in its permanent position. Nobody seems to care about my fine student tenants. I am reasonably sure that someone from the Architectural Review Board or the Planning Commission is reading this. I ask, did this come before your board or is Kent State, my alma mater, allowed to do anything it wants without City approval? I am in the phone book. I do not expect to receive a call.
Feel free to research the Prentiss House move before impugning someone's work or character. While I'm sure the University receives a bit of well-deserved favoritism, I'm also pretty sure they obey the letter of the law.
Of course the University being here has caused growth, but to say that without it Kent would be a tiny one horse town is just plain false. Open your eyes. Look around you at the industry and commerce that is here. And, Mr. Budner, I resent your statement about my rental. You don't know what you're talking about and you just spread the lie that all student rental properties are dumps. My rental may not be Buckingham Palace but it is a fine place for students to live. Why don't you ask some of them? Perhaps you might find that you are indeed full of beans and then cease your ignorant blab. But I doubt that you could ever admit that you are wrong about anything.
I don't see where I have impugned the work or character of anyone at the University. I have just asked questions and stated facts. And why should the university deserve favoritism? Is the University more equal under the law than I am? I do not hate the university. My mother taught there and I have two degrees from there.
It was a good system. Things went downhill after that. Things like zoning laws, zoning boards, architectural review boards, and planning commissions came into existence. You can no longer do what you want with your cave or your piece of land through reliance on your club and your spear. It's a sad situation, but at least it keeps your neighbor from turning his backyard into a nuclear waste dump if he feels like it. You probably wouldn't like that. Instead of knocking on his door to complain, and risk getting speared, you nowadays go to the zoning board and things like that. If you disagree with this system, you'll have to somehow overturn 200 years of case law in the United States. Good luck with that.
In short, everything that has occurred has been legal -- people without current or prospective ownership interest in 247 N. Water St. expressed their concerns to the Planning Board, and the board voted against approving the plans to locate the house onto 247 N. Water St. Like it or not, this is all legal. By "ownership interest" I'm talking about members of the community who don't own or plan on owning 247 N. Water St. They have the right to express their views to the Planning Board, whether KSWH likes it or not. Again, I'm not arguing one way or another, I'm simply explaining that this is how the laws have evolved. So, it's silly for KSWH to argue that the artist who created the mural on the side of Scribbles has no right to voice his opinion to the Planning Commission. As a resident of the community he has the right to do so if he so wishes. Perhaps KSWH would like to pretend it has the power to rewrite 200 years of case law without anybody noticing.