Sandusky commission affirms planning paneldenial of conditional use permit for recovery housing at 603 Columbus Ave

The Sandusky City Commission on Sept. 8 affirmed the City Planning Commissiondenial of a conditional use permit sought by the Recovery Institute of Ohio to operate interim recovery housing at 603 Columbus Ave.

The decision came after an extended public hearing in which the applicant and its counsel argued the propertyfits within the zoningdistrictpermitting transient occupancy and that a denial was improperly motivated by opposition to the future residents. Planning staff recommended the denial, citing proximity to schools and other places of assembly and concerns the proposed use would be inharmonious with the surrounding neighborhood.

The appeal involved competing legal and factual claims. Michael Nacon, who identified himself as counsel for the applicants, told commissioners the building had previously received a conditional use permit for transient occupancy and that the current proposalwould house participants in a recovery program for two to six weeks. "This is a commercial building," Nacon said, arguing the use was misclassified by staff and the Planning Commission and pointing to a prior 2022 permit that allowed transient stays up to 30 days. He also argued that denying the permit because of who would live there would be unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.

Jacob Pstore, who spoke for the operator, said the organization has operated in Sandusky for about eight years and that the proposed site would be used for housing only, with primary detox and clinical services provided at a separate facility. "We just want to be good neighbors," he said, describing proposed measures including a designated smoking area, limits on outdoor congregating, soundproofing and bussed transportation for clients to reduce vehicle traffic.

Adam Bennett, representing the Planning Department, summarized the staff analysis. Bennett said staff categorized the proposed use as a convalescing home within the public facilities (welfare) subcategory and noted the applicant proposed on-site limited treatment, 24-hour staffing, and transportation. He told commissioners staff expected 20 to 25 occupants on-site with four to six staff members at any time and that stays would range from two to six weeks. Bennett said staff believed the site was "closer than appropriate" to multiple schools, churches and places of assembly and raised concerns about neighborhood stability and the districtstandards for conformance with the city's comprehensive plan. He also noted his office had issued a zoning violation and that, to the best of staffknowledge, the property remained occupied in a manner out of compliance with local code.

Several nearby residents urged commissioners to deny the appeal. Carl Magookie, who lives two doors from the property, described noise and late-night gathering he said he had observed since the new owners took possession in March, and urged the commission to keep the busiest corridor of the city free of such a concentration of occupants. "I can see it becoming more similar to a college dorm atmosphere," Magookie said. Kathy Goff, who lives across the street, told the commission she was concerned about the proposalbecause three schools are within a block of the site.

After public comment and questions, commission Chair Burry moved to "affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the appeal." The motion passed on roll call. Commissioners recorded "yes" votes from Miss Fargo, Mister Waddington, Mister Brady, Mister Murray, Mister Bojali, Mister Koontz and Mister Crabill; the motion carried and the denial was upheld.

The applicant had offered a list of potential conditions and mitigations, including soundproofing, restricted outdoor activity hours, fencing for an outdoor area, reimbursement for a neighbor's preexisting fence and strict limits on outdoor congregating between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. Counsel for the applicant said, if the city continues to deny the permit because of the status of prospective residents, Rio would consider "all available remedies" under the ADA and the Fair Housing Act.

The commission's vote leaves in place the Planning Commission's unanimous denial from June 25. Commissioners did not adopt a separate modified permit or condition in this meeting; the action before them was to accept or overturn the Planning Commission's decision. The record will reflect the Planning Commission's findings and the city commission's affirmation of that decision.