Resident raises parking and zoning complaints about group home on Blossom Circle; city staff cite case law and parking enforcement options

Anthony Guinta, a resident of 451 Blossom Circle, told the Tallmadge City Council on Sept. 11 that an operation he described as a staffed group home is generating persistent parking and traffic problems in his cul‑de‑sac. Guinta said he provided a photo showing eight vehicles at the property on Sunday, Sept. 7, including one parked on the sidewalk and one blocking mailboxes, and said the facility appears to operate more like a business than a single household.

The matter drew response from the city’s law director, who said the number of people at the property does not change the zoning classification: “It’s considered a single family use,” the law director said, citing established case law that protects group homes that house people with disabilities under the zoning code. The law director also said the city does not enforce private deed restrictions and suggested affected neighbors pursue civil remedies.

Guinta described operational features he said support his concern: shift rotations, corporate vans, staff parking and daily staff activity. He told council that residents, employees and the employer had given voluntary assurances — including that staff were asked to park in driveways and avoid using horns — but that these promises “do not align with the reality” he continues to observe.

City staff and council outlined the limited enforcement avenues available under city authority. The law director said parking violations should be reported to the police department while they are occurring so officers can address violations contemporaneously; the police already had issued warnings in this case, staff said. The public‑works or service director can have an engineer evaluate whether a cul‑de‑sac should be signed “no parking,” but that change requires an engineering basis and is not automatic.

Council members asked about contact with the organization that runs the home, identified in public remarks as Summit Housing Development Corporation. Staff said they had spoken with the on‑site operators but not with the organization’s board, and that parking citations would be issued to the vehicle owner or driver rather than to the property owner unless lease or civil remedies applied.

Council and staff said the matter is not closed and that staff will continue to follow up. The law director offered to speak further with Guinta after the meeting.

Details recorded in the meeting: Guinta stated four residents and three employees were present at the property and that he observed eight vehicles on Sept. 7 (five in the driveway and three in the cul‑de‑sac), one vehicle parked on the sidewalk, and one blocking mailboxes. He asked whether the city would treat the operation differently if it were effectively operating as a business in an R‑1 district. The law director said existing case law and the city zoning code definitions support treating qualifying group homes as single‑family uses and that deed restrictions are a civil matter beyond city enforcement.

The council did not take formal legislative action on the matter during the meeting.