City gets additional help in Ganley case
By Jeff Gallatin
North Olmsted
Published Oct. 20, 2004

City officials 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.

Law Director 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.

"They have 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."

Dubelko said to date, Arch has only provided the attorney and has not addressed other issues related to the suit filed in Common Pleas Court Sept. 14.

"The issue 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 meeting.

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 in May.

Residents of 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.

Various city 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.