Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal Metal Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Upper Arlington board hears hours of testimony in appeal over Metal Services’ zoning status; deliberation moved to executive session

City of Upper Arlington Board of Zoning and Planning · November 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board heard competing evidence on Nov. 19 after staff revoked Metal Services’ certificate of zoning compliance at 4661 Sawmill Road, citing police calls and records showing school‑like activity; Metal Services and tenants gave conflicting testimony and the board moved into executive session to deliberate.

The City of Upper Arlington Board of Zoning and Planning held a lengthy quasi‑judicial hearing on Nov. 19 over staff’s Oct. 15 revocation of a certificate of zoning compliance for Metal Services at 4661 Sawmill Road. Staff revoked the certificate after what it described as repeated emergency responses, tenant complaints, exterior and interior inspections, and records obtained via the Ohio Department of Education that, staff said, suggested school‑style activity at the site.

Planning Director Chad Gibson told the board that the original August certificate had been accompanied by a condition limiting the site to "medical office use only," and that subsequent emergency calls and other evidence led staff to conclude nonmedical/day‑program activities were taking place. "We respectfully request that the appeal be denied and that the revocation order be upheld so that no nonmedical office uses continue at the site," Gibson said in his summary.

The city presented testimony from Detective Michelle Sussie of the Upper Arlington Police Department, who said she conducted surveillance and site inspections, observed transport vehicles arriving and leaving at school‑day hours, and directly viewed interior spaces she described as arranged with cubicles repurposed for stations, mats or cots, a dry‑erase attendance board and other school‑style materials. "It was clear as day... All these transport vehicles... would all pull in... staff members would come out... the kids would go in," Detective Sussie testified.

Metal Services, represented by counsel, argued the facility is a certified behavioral‑health provider that serves severely autistic individuals who cannot participate in standard schools. The organization produced a state behavioral health certification, Joint Commission accreditation documents and billing CPT codes for day‑treatment services. Executive director William McKinney said the practice offers therapeutic behavioral services, occupational and speech therapy and billed Medicaid and an autism scholarship program for services. "We serve students who... have been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder," McKinney testified, adding that the facility does not provide an academic curriculum or grades.

Tenants who share the building at 4661 Sawmill Road — Splendental dental practice staff and owners — told the board the facility’s operations caused persistent noise, unsafe hallway and parking‑lot incidents, and multiple emergency responses that interfered with patient care. Dr. Douglas Narker described disruptions that forced cancellations and alleged an incident in which someone associated with the upstairs operation shut off the dental practice’s vacuum system valves, leading to an emergency response and canceled procedures.

The parties disputed several pieces of evidence in the hearing: the city relied on DOE records, a student handbook and public‑health inspection documents that referenced the Sawmill address, while the appellant argued those records and funding sources support a non‑educational, clinical day‑treatment model rather than a school or licensed daycare. Both sides called witnesses and introduced documentary exhibits. The board did not issue a public decision at the meeting; it voted to move into executive session to deliberate the quasi‑judicial appeal and will return to the public record with its determination at a future meeting.

Next steps: the board will deliberate in executive session and must announce its decision and the reasons for it on the public record at a subsequent public meeting. If the revocation is upheld, Metal Services would be required to cease non‑permitted activities or seek an alternative permit process; if the revocation is overturned, staff and tenants will likely seek clarity on operational and safety requirements.