Two appeals have been filed against Akron City Council’s approval of a controversial East Akron waste transfer station.
The first appeal, filed Tuesday, Nov. 19, in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, challenges the legality of the decision and includes commercial tenants and individuals whose properties are within a one-mile radius of the 14-acre site at 1400 E. Archwood Ave.
The second appeal from Nov. 21 includes Zion Temple Baptist Church and Good Hope Baptist Church, which are also located within one mile of the site.
The City of Akron and Akron City Council requested Nov. 26 that the two appeals be consolidated into one case. A city spokesperson said they do not have any further comment on the appeals at this time.
The conditional-use agreement City Council approved Oct. 21 allows WM, the company asking to build the waste transfer facility, to construct and operate the facility as long as it complies with agreed-upon parameters — including zoning constraints and keeping the property clean.
Opposition to facility was known prior to approval
The attorney for the Nov. 19 appeal, John Slagter, sought an injunction and temporary restraining order Oct. 21, the same day City Council approved the transfer station, to prevent council from voting on the conditional-use agreement, according to court documents.
The injunction request was too late to be heard by a judge, and City Council voted 10-3 to approve the station. Slagter dropped the complaint voluntarily on Nov. 18.
“To me, it was a rush to judgment,” on the part of City Council to approve the facility, Slagter said.
Slagter said his clients, who have businesses located near the approved site, were not contacted by the City of Akron prior to the facilities approval. He added that one of the criteria in selecting a property for the transfer station was that it would not be disruptive to nearby businesses — his clients believe it would be.
Slagter also said that before council’s vote, his clients offered to split the cost with the City of Akron to hire an expert to determine the validity of WM reports that explained the impact the facility would have on the area. The city declined, Slagter said.
“We believe that there’s other sites that are available … that would be a better site,” Slagter said. “But we were willing to, like any reasonable person would do, take the time to listen, just like they did, allegedly, with the Fountain Street people.”
Additionally, he said that neighbors of the site had asked what benefits the facility would bring to the area. Among the concerns were traffic, noise and odor, all of which public commenters spoke of at the October public hearing, which lasted more than nine hours.
Fountain Street is currently the site of the Akron Waste Transfer Station in Middlebury. It is housed in a building that was built in the 1970s that sits approximately 50 feet away from the nearest residential homes. This, along with the limited size of the parcel, created a long-standing issue with residents in the neighborhood, who have asked for years for the facility to be relocated.
The facility Waste Management is proposing for Archwood Avenue would be located “considerably” farther from residents’ homes, sit within an industrial and commercial zone, and be located on a much larger parcel of land.
Proceedings were delayed multiple times, but attorney says it should have taken longer
After initially delaying their recommendation at a July meeting, the Akron Planning Commission voted to recommend disapproval of the facility at its Aug. 16 meeting.
From there, the decision moved to City Council, which delayed voting on the conditional-use permit when Ward 5 Council Member Johnnie Hannah asked for time to schedule a ward meeting, after it became clear at the public hearing that his residents still had questions about the new facility.
Hannah had failed to gather residents to explain the proposal prior to the hearing. The vote on Oct. 21 came a few days after Hannah held his ward meeting, which Slagter said made “clear that there were still a lot of questions to be answered.”
Hannah, who ultimately voted against the transfer facility, said he supports the efforts of the appellants.
“I’m with them 100%,” Hannah said. “Because, from the beginning, I stood up and said that I did not want that waste transfer station in that area. And so, if this is the only way that we can stop it, I’m with them 101%.”