If the Special Use Permit process is the problem…why not fix it?
I’ve been following the discussion related to Glass City Academy wanting to move to a new location, the former Congregation B’nai Israel synagogue and I also followed what happened back in 2006 when residents of South Toledo didn’t want the school near them. As the Blade points out in 2006 Glass City Academy while approved by the Toledo Plan Commission was denied their special use permit to open a charter school in South Toledo by Toledo City Council. It ended up being a court case. The Toledo City Council vote on this took place on October 3, 2006:
AN ORDINANCE NO. 698-06 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL, TO BE LOCATED AT 3322 SCHNEIDER ROAD, IN THE CITY OF TOLEDO, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO; SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The ordinance was then read by title only.
The roll was called to dispense with the rule requiring that ordinances not be passed earlier than the next succeeding regular or special meeting of Council following its reading; carried, Shultz, Sobczak, Szollosi, Ashford, Birmingham, Brown, Copeland, Grachek, Ludeman, Santiago, Sarantou (11) voting yea; nays none; Craig (1) not voting.The roll was then called on final passage of the ordinance, and the vote thereon was as follows: yeas none; Shultz, Sobczak, Szollosi, Ashford, Birmingham, Brown, Copeland, Grachek, Ludeman, Santiago, Sarantou (11) voting nay; Craig (1) not voting.
In 2008 when the special use permit was granted for the Knight Academy, here was the vote:
Shultz, Sobczak, Waniewski, Webb, Brown, Collins, Copeland, Craig, Sarantou (9) voting yea; Szollosi, Ashford, McNamara (3) voting nay.
I went through the documentation that is out there previously, so I won’t repeat that. Yet I wonder if the process is the problem and the scenario currently exists where it’s possible for a special use permit to be transferred when it is going to be different from what was originally proposed, why that isn’t focused on as far as a fix?
Considering the problems Glass City Academy has faced in the past, it’s realistic to point out that part of the opposition is not related solely to the process, it’s because the residents of that neighborhood didn’t have a problem with an all male charter middle school that was affiliated with a catholic high school and they have a problem with a high school that serves drop outs.
When you look at the process alone though, there is validity to the point that a middle school is different than a high school, and despite the fact that an SUP expires after a year, that it was clear that Knight Academy did abandon the process, had they not abandoned that location then Glass City Academy could have not considered moving there. The process should be one of which where the special use permit is given per property but also per use with the only change allowed being one where if it’s the same exact use but the ownership changed, as in if Knight Academy got the permit and then were being operated by a different company. A convenience store gets a SUP and then is sold and nothing else has changed, it will be run the same way with the same conditions, but just a new owner would be another example.
Which means, I’m suggesting actually fixing the problem as opposed to trying to later deal with what happened because the process is faulty. That probably can’t be undone for this situation, but it could avoid future ones…
Regardless of my own commentary, Glass City Academy: Charter School Uproar in Toledo, Ohio, I agree that your suggestion of revising and codifying the process would make for sound public policy, that is, of course, with the caveat that it not be ex post facto.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pmLisa,
”Yet I wonder if the process is the problem and the scenario currently exists where it’s possible for a special use permit to be transferred when it is going to be different from what was originally proposed, why that isn’t focused on as far as a fix? “
You are exactly right. The permit should expire when those seeking the permit abandoned the project.
Otherwise, anyone could apply for a SUP and then let someone use the SUP without undergoing the scrutiny that the “shill” applicant had to undergo. This deceit may be used for someone who is unable to get the SUP on their own can “back door” the process…, deliberately, in order to get what he/she id unable to qualify for on their own merit/qualifications.
”The process should be one of which where the special use permit is given per property but also per use with the only change allowed being one where if it’s the same exact use but the ownership changed, as in if Knight Academy got the permit and then were being operated by a different company “
Exactly!
But, in this case the nature of the intended use changed without going through the process that the original applicant had to, in order to get the SUP approval, which included neighborhood input.
Cutting out the neighborhood input/revue by saying that a school is a school, is a school, doesn’t set well with the neighbors, who might well have been interested enough to visit the actual functioning school and see/judge for themselves.
Or, is the Glass City Academy reluctant to have such a revue/visit, unannounced, of course? They may have something that they would prefer to keep under wraps…
By using the “back door,” I would think that the neighbors/neighborhood would indeed feel “ambushed.”
And, can you blame them?
–HT/a.k.a. “Z” (with a slash)
May 21st, 2009 at 8:32 pm+++++++++++++++++++++
I believe there should be a new SUP since there is a difference between a middle school and a high school and they are totally different schools/owners. Yet, I also have a feeling that if this does happen that the neighborhood will oppose it just like South Toledo did. Despite the fact that the school has not caused any problems in it’s present location…So, once the whole issue of the process is over? The other reasons why this neighborhood doesn’t support the school will come out, then it will be interesting to see what happens when it comes before Toledo City Council, and who’s still there that will take the same or a different position.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:04 pm