Settlement puts Ganley expansion into drive
By Jeff Gallatin
North Olmsted
Published April 6, 2005

City and Ganley Volkswagen officials shifted the controversial $2 million Lorain Road dealership expansion into gear, moving it out of court where it had been parked in legal limbo.

An out-of-court settlement, reached this week, ends Ganley's lawsuit against the city.

City council was expected to formally approve the tentative pact last night, giving the auto dealership the green light to grow alongside residential neighborhoods.

Ganley can now develop its property at 25600 Lorain Road but must install heightened landscaping and buffering under the tentative settlement. Those changes are designed to shield nearby residents from the development.

The Volkswagon dealership sued the city in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in September. The suit claims the city's demand for split zoning between residential and more business-oriented use on Ganley's land is illegal. The lawsuit also asked the court to consider whether Ganley should receive financial compensation.

"It should work out for the city and Ganley," said Mayor Thomas O'Grady.

Attorney Jordan Berns, representing the car dealership, declined comment Monday. He said he didn't want to speak publicly until council votes to approve the tentative settlement.

After serving as council president last year during the controversy over Ganley's expansion plans, O'Grady said he's glad to see an apparent end to the zoning fight during his first week as mayor.

"Absolutely, this is something we needed to get done," the mayor said.

He added, "It was apparent during the discussion and subsequent votes on the matter that many council members were acutely aware of the area resident's concerns about the development and possible congestion and disruption which they thought would result from it.

"The settlement take steps to protect the neighborhood and residents of it with heightened landscaping and buffering between the dealership and the neighborhood."

City officials said the development reaffirms Ganley's right to develop the property via the city-approved plans. But the agreement does not require the city to rezone any part of the residential portion of the split-zoned property as initially requested by Ganley.

The tentative settlement limits Ganley's use of the residential portions of the property to parking, vehicle storage and underground water retention.

O'Grady said the agreement is fair to Ganley as well.

"You should remember that the development plans had been reviewed and approved by all of the city's boards and commissions," the mayor said. "It was the vote on the split-zoning which stopped it. A lot of people at Ganley and in the city worked hard on trying to find a good and equitable solution."

Acting City Council President Michael Gareau Jr., who is chairman of the building and development committee and helped work on compromises, said the settlement maintains the spirit of that work.

"We wanted something which would provide a strong element of protection for the residents of the area while also recognizing the work Ganley has done," Gareau said.

He reiterated previous beliefs that zoning and property conditions for the city have changed since the property was originally zoned.

"It's totally different 50 years later and the city and people have to recognize that," Gareau said. "We need to have a strong element of planning in our development of the city. We can't just have things thrown together without considering the impact on the community, the neighborhood and the businesses."

Gareau said the agreement also is beneficial because it fully releases the city from all claims for liability or damages that Ganley may have filed against the city. The settlement is binding on the city, Ganley and all future owners of the property.

North Olmsted Law Director Jim Dubelko said it's a very good settlement for the city.

"I applaud the efforts of the city's insurance defense counsel, Ganley's attorneys, and key members of city council for working together with the city law department to support this settlement," Dubelko said.

"It protects the city against liability in a disputed zoning matter," he added. Dubelko also said the settlement "preserves the authority of city council to decline to rezone residential portions of split-zoned properties in the city to more intensive zoning uses and provides for a development which, as approved, will adequately buffer residential property owners from the project's adverse impacts."