The Brook Park City Council voted 4-3 Tuesday to grant a conditional-use permit for a Circle K gas station at 20850 Sheldon, adopting Resolution 16-2024 under emergency rules after extensive public comment and debate.

Supporters and opponents of the proposal packed the council chamber and spoke during the public-comment period and at the dais. The applicant’s agent, Thomas J. Coyne, said Circle K had agreed to multiple site conditions, including setbacks, lighting and dumpster placement, and that the company intends to invest in intersection improvements. “Circle K is not threatened to sue anyone,” Coyne said, denying assertions that his client was using litigation to force approval.

Opponents, who delivered detailed legal and procedural objections, urged the council to deny the permit. Barb Wells, who said she had retained counsel, accused the city of “circumvent[ing] established ordinance to benefit Circle K” and urged the council to “reconsider the resolutions and restore fairness to this process.” Cheryl Catula and other residents cited multiple provisions of the Brook Park codified ordinances that they said had not been satisfied — including requirements about a 500-foot radius signature consent threshold and the completeness of traffic and site plans.

Public-safety concerns and neighborhood impacts also featured prominently. Tammy Peterson called for the council to weigh public-safety consequences, referencing unrelated concerns about local stroke-care diversions at Southwest General Hospital, and saying, “Time is brain. We cannot afford for internal politics or scheduling inflexibility to interfere with emergency stroke care in our city.” Several residents said a 24-hour station would generate noise, crime and light pollution in the adjacent neighborhood.

Council debate addressed both procedural and policy questions. Councilman (last name) Scott framed the decision in neighborhood terms, asking whether residents’ “peace and mind and well-being [were] worth the measly $4,200 a year” the city would typically expect in annual revenue from such a station. Councilman Mancini said he apologized to residents for an error he made earlier on the planning commission about how the city interpreted the ordinance’s 51% consent threshold and acknowledged that petitioners had gathered more than 51% of property-owner signatures in the relevant radius.

On the council floor, members split along lines that reflected both procedural and neighborhood concerns. The roll call recorded four votes in favor — from Councilman Scott, Councilman Roberts, Councilman Mancini and Councilman McCorkle — and three against — from Councilman Troyer, Councilman Dufour and Councilman Poindexter. The motion passed 4 to 3; the resolution was adopted under an emergency declaration included in the ordinance language.

The record shows repeated resident assertions that specific codified requirements had not been fulfilled (signatures within the 500-foot radius, final site blueprints, and traffic-study clarifications). The law director, Carol Horvath, and the city clerk explained procedural steps the office took when preparing amended language for council consideration, including incorporating wording supplied by council members for codification into the resolution.

Because the resolution was adopted as an emergency, residents and speakers noted a shorter timeline for referendum or administrative appeal; counsel for objecting residents asserted the city may be exposed to legal challenges and raised specific ordinance citations in the public record.

The council’s action does not itself implement site work; additional permits, site-plan approvals and inspections will be required before construction or operations begin. The council did not set a separate limit in the resolution on hours of operation beyond the language adopted in the amended resolution.

The council president and other members acknowledged the decision was difficult and divisive. Several residents who spoke said they plan to pursue appeals and other legal options if the project proceeds.