Article Photos

Fact Box

Redevelopment group to present plan

The Seneca County Courthouse and Redevelopment Group is to present the details of its case Monday to save the 1884 Seneca County Courthouse. The group is to meet with the Seneca County commissioners.

The commissioners' board session is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. The SCCDRG, led by preservation consultant Franklin Conaway, is scheduled to begin its presentation about 10:30 a.m.

The SCCDRG plans to bring more than a dozen presenters for the session, including a high-level representative of the Ohio Department of Development.

Conaway said during a recent preview of the meeting he expects the presentation to be divided into three parts. The first part is to be a presentation of the renovation design created by architects working for the group. The second part is to be a detailed presentation of cost estimates for the various aspects of the renovation. The final part is to be the continuation of the discussion about financing for the project. It is to be during this part that the ODOD representative is to speak with the commissioners. The presentation may include a lunch break if necessary, according to the published agenda for the meeting.

The presentation could be the last of its kind-the final option to save and renovate the historic courthouse building. The commissioners are not expected to make a final decision about the plan at this meeting.

In other business, the commissioners are expected to open proposals for the jail's Honeywell EBI automation system and for heating ventilation and air conditioning.

The board is to consider resolutions for the following:

To enter into an agreement with Amy Hatfield for dietician services on behalf of the Seneca County Sheriff's Department.

Setting the time, date and place to receive sealed bids for the Distel Tile Ditch Petition project on CR 16.

The board is to consider financial matters as follows:

Rescinding a previous order for an appropriation adjustment for the sheriff's commissary fund.

An appropriation adjustment of $1,650 within the sheriff's commissary fund.

A supplemental appropriation of $50,000 to the Delinquent Care & Custody Grant fund.

A fund transfer of $50,000 to the Delinquent Care & Custody Grant fund.

A supplemental appropriation of $120,000 to the CR 16 Petition Ditch fund for contract services and advertising.

An appropriation adjustment of $400 within the general fund from contingencies to supplies.

By Kevin Risner, staff writer

A gathering is scheduled for Monday in the Seneca County commissioners board room. A group of professionals want the commissioners to render a decision in favor of saving and renovating the 1884 Seneca County Courthouse. At the same time, another courthouse-related decision could come any time now.

Visiting Judge Charles Wittenberg is considering a decision of his own related to the courthouse: Whether to issue a declaratory judgment that the commissioners have done all they are required to do to satisfy the city of Tiffin and the Architectural Board of Review. If Wittenberg issues the declaratory judgment in favor of the commissioners, the final obstacle to demolishing the vacant courthouse would be gone.

Final documents for the litigation between the county and the city of Tiffin were filed by County Prosecutor Derek DeVine and City Law Director Brent Howard within the last month. Additional documents also were recently filed by Ohio Preservation Alliance Inc. as a friend of the court.

A declaratory judgment would render another local decision powerless - the decision by the review board to not grant a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the 1884 courthouse.

Like most other issues related to the vacant courthouse, this issue began months ago with details that may now be forgotten by many.

Background

Because the Seneca County Courthouse is a building within the Tiffin Downtown Historic District, the county commissioners during early 2008 sought permission from the Architectural Board of Review before demolishing the vacant structure. The review board voted early to deny the county a certificate of appropriateness, triggering a months-long process of negotiations between the commissioners and the review board seeking an alternative to demolition. It was during those negotiations that preservation consultant Franklin Conaway was introduced to the process. Conaway's group is scheduled to meet with the commissioners Monday.

During December, the commissioners canceled a meeting with the review board. The board then voted to re-affirm its decision to deny the certificate of appropriateness. That vote essentially ended the review board's involvement and opened the door for the county to appeal the decision to the Tiffin Zoning Board of Appeals.

The commissioners began the process of appealing the decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals, then decided to seek the declaratory judgment instead.

The process seemed on a fast-track to a decision by Wittenberg in April when DeVine and Howard filed stipulations to facts and prepared motions for a summary judgment by Wittenberg.

Three days after the two sides filed stipulations of fact, three local property owners filed a motion to intervene as defendants. The three property owners - George Freeman, Suzanne Leiner Jackson and Carol A. Yager - argued the city was not vigorous enough in its defense of the rights of property owners within the downtown historic district. A hearing was held on the motion to intervene and Wittenberg eventually ruled against the three property owners.

On the same day Wittenberg heard arguments on the motion to intervene, he also heard from Ohio Preservation Alliance and granted the organization permission to file a brief in the original case as an amicus curiae brief - a friend-of-the-court brief. After Wittenberg ruled against the intervention of the three property owners, a new schedule was set for the filing of briefs to continue the case.

The Alliance

Ohio Preservation Alliance argued in its brief the decision of the court would likely set a precedent for similar cases involving historic structures in Ohio. The alliance argued the integrity of the review board ordinance was in jeopardy.

The case law cited by all parties including the alliance was Brownfield verses the State of Ohio, which established precedents in Ohio about how the competing interests of differing governmental agencies should be decided. The alliance argued the "Brownfield test" was being applied incorrectly by the county and city.

"As previously shared with the court, we know of no reported cases in Ohio where the interface between levels of state government interests have been weighed in the context of historic preservation or architectural review ordinances, as distinguished from 'user-based' land use ordinances," the alliance said in its brief.

Among other arguments, the alliance argued the court should consider the potential impact on neighboring properties and whether alternative locations exist for a county courthouse. The alliance said the commissioners should return to the process of appealing the review board decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals before the court should consider the case.

DeVine's response to the alliance's brief noted the perceived bias of the alliance.

"Preservation Ohio has a stated mission of preservation of Ohio historic architectural resources," DeVine wrote in his response. "This viewpoint blinds Preservation Ohio from seeing the true nature of the lawsuit."

DeVine argued any precedent set by the case would be limited because of the "rather unique" facts in the case. DeVine argued the true legal precedent already was established by Brownfield.

"As indicated in Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the issue raised by the lawsuit is not about whether the 1884 courthouse should be preserved or not," DeVine wrote. "The lawsuit is for this court to render a decision between two governmental entities each attempting to execute its own functions as allowed by the Ohio law."

Howard also responded to the alliance on behalf of the city.

Howard argued the alliance was incorrect in its application of the Brownfield precedent. The factors in Brownfield that caused the impact on neighboring properties to be considered were different than the current case. In Brownfield, the state proposed to locate a halfway house for patients discharged from a psychiatric center in a single-family residential area.

"In our case, there is no proposed use which is contrary to the city's zoning law," Howard wrote. "Therefore, the factors unique to Brownfield, such as impact on surrounding properties, are not relevant."

Howard offered another point in his response to the alliance. Howard wrote "it is not stipulated that the adoption and enforcement of the city's design review ordinance enacted in 2000, less than 10 years ago, is an essential function of city government."

With all documents filed, the case became "decisional" July 17. Wittenberg could issue his decision any day.