MAHONING COUNTY Appeals court ruling favors trustee in case of repaving of Canfield Twp. road

The project was completed last October.
CANFIELD -- An appeals court has ruled that Canfield Township Trustee Judy Bayus can argue to a county common pleas court judge that the township should not have repaved Gibson Road.
The ruling from the 7th District Court of Appeals earlier this week states that Atty. Mark Finamore, who represents the township, did not put on a full defense against the Cardinal Joint Fire District's request that Judge James Evans force trustees to pave the road.
As a result, Bayus, who opposed the repaving, can present arguments that serve as an additional defense against the fire district's request to Judge Evans, the appeals court ruled.
The fire district, which covers Canfield city and township, asked Judge Evans to force the township to pave the road in 2002.
State law
State law required trustees to unanimously approve repaving projects, but Bayus voted against the Gibson Road project several times. Visiting Common Pleas Court Judge Mary Cacioppo also ruled in 2000 that trustees could not repave the road because they had made an unconstitutional agreement with a developer to install a waterline as part of the project. When the fire district asked Judge Evans to force the township to pave the road, Bayus filed a legal motion requesting an opportunity to argue against the fire district's request.
A magistrate ruled that Bayus did not have the right to intervene, and Judge Evans upheld the magistrate's decision. Bayus appealed to the appeals court.
The developer later paid to install the waterline and in 2003 the appeals court issued a ruling that allowed Trustees Paul Moracco and Bill Reese to move ahead with the project. The project was completed last October.
Appeals court ruling
The ruling by the appeals court earlier this week was in response to Bayus' request to intervene in the fire district case.
The appeals court also overruled trustees' motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the project is complete, stating that the fire district could bring further legal action against the township if it felt additional repairs were needed.
Finamore said that he was surprised by the ruling and that he most likely will argue to the common pleas court judge that Bayus' opposition to the project is meaningless because the road has already been repaved.
Bayus has argued that the township was not legally required to repave the road, that Gibson Road residents did not want the road repaved, and that the project plans and construction bids were flawed.
Her attorney could not be reached to comment.