Warren City Council authorizes solicitor to sign consent order in land-use appeal over hotel parcel

Warren City Council on Feb. 20 voted to authorize City Solicitor Andrea Stapleford to execute a consent order resolving a land-use appeal filed by John Branch over parcel W N 49986100, a small portion of which the city zoning map has long shown as industrial despite later rezoning of the surrounding property.

The vote came at a specially called meeting prompted by the pending court docket (docket number 292025) and completed with six affirmative votes; Council member McCain declined to cast a vote. Councilmember (mover) Lalala introduced the authorization with an amendment limiting the consent order to the subsurface oil-and-gas interests, and the motion was seconded (second not specified in the record). The motion carried with six votes in the affirmative, and the mayor cast a yes vote as recorded by roll call.

The dispute stems from a small two-tenths-of-an-acre sliver of parcel W N 49986100 that, according to the city solicitor, continued to be depicted on the City of Warren zoning map as industrial even after the rest of the parcel had been treated as commercial on the map. Solicitor Andrea Stapleford told the council the discrepancy predated recent revisions and that Mr. Branch relied on the map when proceeding with a drilling project. “There always are. I mean, it’s hard to say, but I think they’re minimal at this point in time,” Stapleford said when asked about legal risks of signing the consent order.

Stapleford explained the proposed consent order would reference the two-tenths-of-an-acre area, attach a map depicting that area, and state that, for purposes of Branch’s lawsuit, the small area would be considered industrial to enable his project to proceed. She said the city’s records and map revisions going back decades showed the map error, and that the city revised and corrected its zoning map in May 2024 to reflect the parcel as commercial except for that small sliver.

Members of the public pressed for more information about the parcel and the notice that preceded the special meeting. A resident who identified himself as Mr. Wainen said he came because the legal notice was “so cryptic” and he did not know where the parcel was; Ronald Peterson of 225 Liberty said he also wanted more details. “I didn’t know what it was about. I didn’t know where this parcel is,” Wainen said during public comment.

Council members asked procedural questions including why the item was not placed on last week’s regular agenda; Stapleford and staff said the matter needed prompt attention for court deadlines and could not wait until a regular meeting. Councilmember McCain moved to table the action to allow the public more time to obtain information, but her motion failed for lack of a second and was not put to a roll-call vote.

Under the action the council approved, the consent order will be presented to a judge in the Court of Common Pleas; the judge may accept or reject the consent order. If approved by the court, the order will be a public court document and would permit the narrow industrial designation for the identified two-tenths-of-an-acre area for the limited purpose described in the order. Council and staff said they would make additional information available, including the map attachment referenced in the consent order, once it is ready.

The council’s action addresses only the consent order before the court; the city does not at this meeting adopt broader rezoning or changes to its zoning ordinance. Questions about drilling reach, permit applications, and technical details (including whether drilling might be directional or reach nearby parks) were raised by members of the public and council but remain unanswered in the record because permitting and technical reviews had not been filed or completed at the time of the meeting.

Votes at a glance: Motion to authorize City Solicitor Andrea Stapleford to execute the consent order (amended to limit to subsurface interests) — Mover: Councilmember Lalala; Second: not specified; Vote: Flasher — yes; Barbera — yes; Cashman — yes; Gilbert — yes; McCain — declined to vote; Guwala — yes; Mayor Wertman — yes; Outcome: approved (motion carries with six affirmative votes).