Mentor council tables car-wash conditional-use request after residents cite traffic, safety concerns

The Mentor City Council on June 3 tabled consideration of a conditional-use permit for a proposed car wash at the former Boston Market site at 93.61 Mentor Avenue after multiple residents said the location would worsen traffic and pose safety risks.

Residents who live near the Heisley Road–Mentor Avenue intersection urged the council to delay a decision while the Planning Commission reviews an amended site plan and recorded easements. Joe Zeman, Mentor’s law director, told council that the only item currently before the Planning Commission is the site plan and that council’s review of the CUP will follow once the commission completes its review.

The proposal was referred to the Planning Commission after that body approved a CUP on May 1. Council held the item “on the table” pending additional technical review, including a traffic study and recorded easements that staff said had not yet been provided.

Several residents emphasized existing congestion at the intersection. Tammy DiCarlo, a Wayside Lakes resident, said the stretch “between Target and Heisley is already overloaded,” and urged council to consider the intersection’s existing traffic and emergency access concerns. Janice Surdio, who lives near Route 20, told council the old Boston Market parcel is “literally tucked in between Speedway, Salvation Army and Murphy’s USA” and questioned whether ingress and egress for a car wash could be managed safely.

Suzanne Woodbury, who lives adjacent to Route 20, said the corridor already has multiple car washes and asked whether the proposed facility could be sited without causing queueing onto Mentor Avenue and Heisley Road. Laura Whitney, another Wayside Lakes resident, said nearby lots are already subject to left‑turn backups that can cause delays.

City Manager Ken Filipiak said staff and the Planning Commission need time to review an amended site plan and outstanding recorded-easement documents. Zeman recommended council wait for the commission’s updated review before taking action.

Councilmembers said they had received an unusually large volume of public correspondence on the item. President Blake kept the ordinance on the table and asked staff to ensure the Planning Commission’s June 12 meeting would include the revised materials. No formal vote on the CUP occurred; the item remains tabled pending additional analysis and the Planning Commission’s review.

The council did not take a final vote on the CUP at the June 3 meeting. The tabled status means no permit has been granted and no construction approvals have been issued while the city reviews the amended site plan and traffic-related materials.