The decade-old dispute over a narrow
block-long road leading to the Hope School now has two routes
available for resolution without a trial. One is a motion for
summary judgment filed by Woodside Township on July 28; the other
is an agreement proposed by the Hope School and re-crafted by
Woodside road commissioner Don Duffy.
Either route could end a conflict that dates
back to at least 1995, when residents of Hazel Lane petitioned
Woodside Township, complaining that the school’s 300
employees and assorted delivery trucks created traffic problems on
their street — a tiny lane with 17 single-family homes. The
residents asked for a new road to be built to provide access to the
school from East Hazel Dell Lane, and, once the new road was built,
for a gate to be installed where Hazel Lane dead-ends into one of
the Hope School’s parking lots. The gate would preserve Hazel
Lane as a secondary access to the school for emergency vehicles,
but would alleviate the crush of everyday school traffic on their
street.
Duffy forwarded the residents’ request
to the city of Springfield, which owns the property on which Hope
School is located. In a letter dated March 11, 1995, and addressed
to then-city engineer Richard Benning, Duffy explained the traffic
problems, the need for a new road, and the plan to install a gate.
It took years of design studies and more than $225,000 of city
funds, but Springfield eventually did construct a new road
providing access to the school from East Hazel Dell Lane. Six feet
wider than Hazel Lane, the avenue opened in January 2004.
But residents along Hazel Lane claim school
employees and delivery trucks ignored the new road and continued to
rumble up and down their small street. When Duffy installed the
gate as promised, the Hope School filed a lawsuit against him and
Woodside Township, claiming the gate “closed” the road
without due process and also violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The Hope School, a not-for-profit residential and educational
facility, serves children with developmental disabilities.
In its motion for summary judgment, Woodside
Township argues that the road is not closed; it is open all the way
to the spot where it dead-ends into the school parking lot. As for
the ADA claims, Woodside argues the act provides only that disabled
citizens be treated equally with non-disabled, and that the gate
(which is never locked) bars all vehicles except emergency vehicles
from entering the Hope School.
An editorial published Sunday in the State Journal-Register touted an agreement proposed by the Hope School to
conduct a 60-day traffic study to see whether school employees and
delivery trucks create a hazard on Hazel Lane, and implied that
township trustees could ratify the agreement this week. Duffy,
however, is a publicly elected road commissioner and does not
answer to township trustees except on budget matters. He says he has sent the Hope
School’s proposed agreement back with added requirements.
The editorial also claims the Hope School has
“been emphatic in instructing its employees, delivery drivers
and visitors to use the new road, not Hazel Lane.” Yet as
recently as July 17, SJ-R published an advertisement placed by the Hope School
seeking lifeguards and directing candidates to apply in person at
50 Hazel Lane. The school has apparently not adopted a new address
to correspond to the new access road.
Joseph Nyre, president and CEO of the Hope
School, was not available to return a call seeking comment on the
lawsuit.
This article appears in Aug 4-10, 2005.
