Neighbors ask Tallmadge to enforce parking, safety and zoning rules at Blossom Circle group home

Resident Anthony Guinta told the Tallmadge City Council on Aug. 28 that activity connected to a group-home operator at 448 Blossom Circle is creating traffic, parking and safety problems on the small cul-de-sac. "This is not about who lives at this residence of 448 Blossom. We welcome every resident to our neighborhood, including those with disabilities," Guinta said. "This is how the property is being operated by the operator, Hattie Larlam, in Summit Housing and the impact that we're having on our small cul de sac." Guinta and another neighbor described multiple daily staff shifts, corporate vans parked in driveways, clusters of five to eight cars during staff meetings, instances of honking and an incident that required police involvement after a staff vehicle nearly struck a child on a bicycle. They said the traffic and parking patterns block driveways and could impede emergency vehicles. "The design of the cul de sac is for low traffic, safe play, and easy access, not for a commercial level traffic and meetings," Guinta said. Colleen Lisonbee, who lives next door at 454 Blossom Circle, told council the school bus picks up children at a corner near the home and that vehicles associated with the property regularly speed and "come flying around the corner." She said the cul-de-sac has limited curb space and that large vehicles or repeated pickups disrupt neighbors. Guinta cited several legal and regulatory references during his remarks, including an Ohio statute he identified as "Ohio revised code 5 1 1 9, 1 to 5 residents," Tallmadge code sections he cited as "1189" and "35103," and "Chapter 717" as a local registration requirement for group homes. He told the council that federal protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act protect residents but do not exempt operators from neutral safety and parking rules. Guinta asked the city to verify whether 448 Blossom is licensed under the local chapter he cited and to require the operator to apply for a conditional-use permit so the community can provide input and safeguards. A city staff member responding at the meeting said staff had received the complaints that day and would review them and act where city code applies. "We will take a look at the ones that we can take action on, which some of them we will be able to such as the parking and things like that that that is applicable," the staff member said, and added the matters would be referred to the appropriate department if they could not be handled immediately by the recipient. What happened: Council did not vote or take formal enforcement action at the meeting. The city indicated staff will review the complaints and follow up on parking and other enforceable issues; neighbors sought verification of licensing, enforcement of neutral safety and parking regulations, and consideration of a conditional-use process for institutional operations on a cul-de-sac. Why it matters: Neighbors say the frequency of staff rotations and vehicle activity has turned a residential cul-de-sac into what they call an "institutional" operation, raising child-safety and emergency-access concerns while testing the limits of local zoning and parking rules. What comes next: City staff said they will review the complaints and refer them to the appropriate departments. Residents asked for formal verification of licensing and a requirement for a conditional-use review if the propertyis operating at an institutional intensity. The council did not adopt any ordinance or order at the meeting.