Overview: Planning commission rejects more delays
The City of Mansfield Planning Commission voted 5-2 on Thursday to deny any further delays for West Mansfield Realty, LLC. It appears the city will demolish the 1157 Park Ave. West strip mall and large parking lot on its own.
MANSFIELD — The City of Mansfield will apparently swing its own wrecking ball against the walls of the West Park Shopping Center, though a legal battle with the building’s owners may be coming swiftly.
The City of Mansfield Planning Commission voted 5-2 on Thursday to deny any further delays for West Mansfield Realty, LLC, and will demolish the 1157 Park Ave. West strip mall and large parking lot on its own.
The city would pay for the work and then likely invoice the company to cover the costs of the work to tear down the once-prominent shopping center along the “Miracle Mile.”
Planning Commission members Dave Remy, Jotika Shetty, Dan Seckel, Dr. Ted Sazdanoff and Dr. Donald Dewald voted in favor of ending the delays. David Messmore and Terry Brown voted against.
“At this point, the city will take over the demolition of the property as I understand it. We’ll make arrangements to have the property demolished,” said Remy, the city’s public works director who presided over the meeting in the absence of Mayor Tim Theaker.
That prompted a quick response from Cincinnati attorney Sean Suder, representing the company.
“So we can maybe have a separate discussion with your law director (John Spon). I do think, unfortunately, litigation is imminent,” Suder said.
Remy, an attorney and the city’s former law director, said he wants to be included in any additional discussions.
“I would like to be in on that discussion. As I indicated, I am a licensed attorney myself, have been for a number of years and was part of the law department for 20 years before I got the current position,” Remy said.
Remy had been the city’s elected law director until Spon defeated him in the 2011 November general election, 50.3 percent to 49.7 percent.
“Sure,” Suder said. “Anyone who would like to join, but we do need to have a conversation immediately before this gets to the next step.”
The vote came at the end of a nearly-hour long meeting, which included attorneys for West Mansfield Realty, a New York-based company that is part of Namdar Realty Group.
It also came after Suder and Anthony Matinale, general counsel for Namdar, said they were prepared to demolish the building. Both participated in the meeting via Zoom.
But the two challenged the city’s legal authority to order anything done to the large parking lot and said it was not a part of the original demolition order nine months ago.
The Planning Commission decision also signaled a significant step in a process that began four years ago when the city’s Codes & Permits Department notified the company of violations on the property it purchased in 2015.
That back-and-forth between the city and the owners ratcheted up in November 2022 when the Planning Commission ordered West Mansfield Realty to tear down two-thirds of the vacant, decaying structure.
The New York-based company appealed the decision and was granted a six-month extension to complete the work. The deadline was July 14 — yet the dilapidated strip of shops remains.
An “evidentiary hearing” was held before the Planning Commission on Aug. 8. During that meeting, Suder raised the issue of the parking lot demolition and the city’s requirement that it be landscaped with topsoil, grass seed and straw.
At the end of that meeting, members voted to give the company until Aug. 15 to produce a $50,000 appeal bond and also a performance bond that would cover the cost of the demolition and clean-up of the deteriorating property.
West Mansfield Realty did meet the deadline for the appeal bond, but did not submit the performance bond, according to city officials.
During the meeting Thursday, Suder said the company could not post the performance bond because.
“We do not have clarity and I don’t think there is agreement on the scope of the demolition,” Suder said.
He noted the city’s demolition order was just for the building.
“The parking lot was not contemplated by this demolition order,” Suder said.
He believes Ohio law and city ordinances do not provide the authority to order such work on parking lots and drives.
“We’re prepared to proceed in accordance with the demolition order and take the building down. It’s our understanding that’s what the city really wants. You made an unsafe building order and we are willing and prepared,” Suder said.
Spon, who has counseled patience among Planning Commission members, said if West Mansfield Realty agreed to demolish the building on its own that the parking lot issue could be considered in a separate demolition order.
He asked Suder, “There’s nothing that would stop the city from issuing a new demolition order, which would specifically earmark the city’s order to demolish the parking lot, correct?”
Suder said he could not answer that.
“That’s up up to you all. I think Ohio law would probably prevent that, but you can certainly do so and then we can take a look at it,” he said.
Spon said it was his understanding that the building demolition would cost around $250,000. Adding the parking lot work would raise the price tag to $600,000, which Spon said he believes is one of the reason’s the company doesn’t want to do the parking lot.
“The other reason is, in order to try to minimize your cost to demolition the parking lot, your company is desirous of trying to find another entity to jointly develop the present site. And specifically, it was represented to me that looking for a developer might be a big package entity like Lowe’s, a large company, possibly. Correct?” Spon asked.
Matinale said that would be the goal.
“To either partner with an operator (or) step aside and just provide the land. Obviously, this would all be in conjunction with the city. We would hope to work with you guys and meet in-person down the road and get your take on what you’re looking for from the property moving forward,” he said.
“But as the issue stands today, we would hope to just comply with the original order as it pertains to the building and then deal with the parking lot at a later date,” he said.
However, the city produced a document showing the parking lot demolition is not a new issue.
During the meeting, Marc Milliron, the city’s demolition coordinator, testified about a letter former Deputy Law Director Christopher Brown sent to West Mansfield attorney Craig Bizar in February that noted the parking lot demolition was discussed with the company during a meeting on Dec. 13.
Ultimately, Shetty made a motion to end the demolition delays.
“West Mansfield Realty, LLC, has been in violation of its extension. I think that’s point number one. It did not post its demolition appeal bond. So the very fact that this commission was willing to extend that timeline was based on some good faith attempts by Mansfield Realty to address the parking lot,” she said.
“That was the only reason I think this commission entertained an idea of a contingency extension of that timeline,” Shetty said, adding it was clear the company had still not submitted the performance bond.
“So I would like to respectfully put the motion on the table that we deny an additional of the demolition order,” Shetty said.
Even after the 5-2 vote, Spon tried to again counsel caution.
“If (West Mansfield) were to say today that they only need a few days to actually start the demolition of this structure, to not grant them a few days will accomplish nothing. In my opinion, it will not be in the best interest of the city because what it does is it will delay for two or three or four months the whole process,” Spon said.
“If they appeal it and they win the appeal, we have to start all over again. The other factor is that we’re talking about the expenditure of public dollars are PRIDE monies, which are paid by the hardworking citizens of Mansfield,” the law director said.
Remy interjected and said all of these issues were discussed during the two-hour hearing on Aug. 8 and that West Mansfield Realty had again not met its deadlines.
“With all due respect, I’m the law director and I have a right to render my opinion,” Spon said.
“If you deny that opportunity, then you’re going to require that the $250,000 be paid out of the tax monies that are raised from the city when it’s unnecessary to do that. So we might want to be careful on how we expend the public dollars if we’re only talking about a few days,” he said.
West Mansfield attorneys tried to continue the discussion before Remy put a stop to it.
“The problem, sir, the problem is you, the opportunity to have these discussions and do this, what you say you’re going to do tomorrow occurred eight to nine months ago and should have been talked then,” Remy said.
“But nobody raised those issues. … Sir, we’re done,” Remy said.
The meeting was adjourned a few minutes later.