City council turns down Bradley Bay appeal
By Eric J. Eakin
Bay Village
Published Jan. 19, 2005

The issue of whether Bradley Bay Health Center should be allowed to expand last week moved one step closer to being decided in a court of law.

City Council members unanimously upheld a planning commission recommendation that the expansion not be allowed.

Bradley Bay's appeal of the commission's decision to the full council was just the next step in a journey that will almost surely end up in court.

Citing city provisions that allow the expansions of nursing homes and similar facilities onto contiguous property, even if that property is in a residential area, Bradley Bay officials had hoped to build a $7-million expansion that would have featured 84 beds, including 32 in independent-living suites.

The planning commission, however, late last year ruled that the proposed addition is not a continuation of the existing nursing home because, with its independent-living suites, it is too much like an apartment building.

Before a crowd of more than 60 people, Bradley Bay lawyer Sheldon Berns of the firm of Berns, Ockner and Greenberg said the proposed facility met all guidelines for a licensed nursing facility.

Berns questioned Bradley Bay owner John O'Neill at length about the proposed facility to try and establish that it would be, essentially, an extension of the existing facility. Berns questioned O'Neill about food service, the delivery of medicines, housekeeping and other services in an attempt to establish the similarity of services offered at the existing facility and in the proposed addition.

Attorney Harry Brown of the firm of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan and Aronoff, who specializes in health-care issues, tried to explain that the proposed addition would meet the loose definition of nursing home because of the services offered and the fact that it would need to be licensed.

Brown said "assisted living" has no statutory definition by the state. "Clearly, this facility is going to require licensure," Brown said. "This building is designed to provide items of daily living and needs to be licensed."

Berns said he did not think the planning commission had an accurate grasp of the laws and urged the council members to table the issue until the commission could be informed of them.

"The facts and the laws are clear. This (facility) is in compliance with your codes," Berns said.

Council member Brian Cruse countered that the nursing home was only allowed to operate because, 40 years ago, it fell loosely under the definition of a hospital, which was allowed by zoning ordinances. Since hospital beds must be approved by the state and the beds in the proposed facility would not, Cruse said he would vote to uphold the planning commission's refusal.

Having lost at the city level, and with little room for further negotiation, it is expected the city will end up defending its decision before common pleas court sometime in the next few months.