gets additional help in Ganley case
By Jeff Gallatin
Published Oct. 20, 2004
have called in experienced reinforcements for their defense in the
suit filed recently against North Olmsted by attorneys for the $2
million-plus Ganley Volkswagen project.
Jim Dubelko said attorney John Latchney for the Arch Insurance Group
as well as attorney George Smerigan, who worked on the Parcel E
legal matters involving the city pertaining to the development of
that property, would be working with him on the city defense.
some expertise in dealing with these kind of lawsuits," Dubelko
said. "Latchney was provided by the insurance company to work on
the defense while Smerigan is very versed in planning and how the
law affects it. He worked quite a bit on the Parcel E project work,
so he's got some experience working on planning and development
and how it affects a city as well as a development project."
to date, Arch has only provided the attorney and has not addressed
other issues related to the suit filed in Common Pleas Court Sept.
of insurance coverage for the claims presented by Ganley has not
yet been determined and communicated to the city by the insurer,"
Dubelko said. Dubelko has declined to discuss North Olmsted's potential
legal strategies while the case is still developing, but said he
had asked city council to call another executive session at last
night's regularly scheduled council meeting to further discuss the
case. Dubelko and council met initially after the Oct. 5 council
Ganley is alleging
that the split-zoning of the property located near the intersection
of Lorain Road and Ranchview Drive is unconstitutional and is asking
Judge Daniel Gaul to rule as such. Ganley officials also have raised
the issue of whether there should be financial compensation for
Ganley because of council's narrow defeat of the rezoning proposal
the area oppose Ganley's proposal, saying it would de-value their
properties and cause noise and congestion problems. Council members
voting against the measure cited the neighborhood opposition as
a primary reason for their vote. Ganley Attorney Jordan Berns has
indicated the business would still be interested in pursuing the
development, noting the suit also seeks the issuance of city permits
that would let the project go forward.
panels and council considered the proposal for several weeks earlier
this year before the project was stymied by the May council vote.
Gaul has said the city attorneys must a file a response to Ganley's
allegations by Oct. 25.