Developer wants meeting with Elyria Council, city officials on Reaser Pointe Crossing dispute

Editor's Note: This story has been edited to clarify comments made by Law Director Amanda Deery. ELYRIA — Lawyers for DBR Commercial Realty went before Elyria City Council on Monday to ask city officials to sit down and solve the disagreement regarding a proposed development in the city. Three lawyers hired by DBR owner Dan Reaser spoke to Council, asking for Council members to have a joint meeting with other city officials and DBR representatives to resolve a lawsuit and come to an agreement on the development of the property. Reaser hopes to build 422 townhomes and 14 commercial properties on the property. "If everybody gets together in a room we can get this thing worked out," Reaser said after the meeting. DBR and the city have fought and debated for more than four years about developing a property in southeast Elyria and constructing the Reaser Pointe Crossing connector road through that property. The company and its owner, Dan Reaser, first sued the city in 2021 arguing that the city had incorrectly built the connector road and that it was therefore causing flooding on the property, and also that the city had "taken" additional land from DBR to build water retention ponds. The two sides came to an agreement in 2023 in which the city agreed to take steps to remediate the flooding, but in late January DBR renewed a lawsuit, arguing that the city had failed to complete the work it agreed to. Reaser and DBR's lawyers have said that they only refiled the lawsuit because it was set to expire and they did not believe that the city was working in good faith to resolve the dispute before that happened. Law Director Amanda Deery said that the city has filed a response and a counterclaim in Lorain County Common Pleas Court which, in part, asks the court to clarify what exactly the obligations of the city and DBR are in the agreement. "There's obviously a fundamental disagreement regarding the settlement and continuation agreement," Deery said. "Clearly DBR believes that (the city) did not follow the agreement, and the city through its counterclaim is asking the court to make a determination." Deery also told the members of Council that they were all under subpoena as a part of DBR's lawsuit, meaning that they were expected to be called to submit documents or testimony in the case. She said that she would therefore warn them to be careful about what they said regarding the DBR project both to DBR representatives or in a public meeting. "This matter is in litigation so I would caution you against any sort of speaking as to any specifics," Deery said. "I do welcome the fact that DBR and their legal counsel are here tonight." Speaking on DBR's behalf during the meeting first was attorney David Lum of McCarthy Lebit Crystal Liffman who has represented DBR in the case for several years. Also speaking for DBR were Alan Scheufler and Amanda Martinsek of law firm UB Greensfelder, who were hired just about 10 days ago, Scheufler said. "I am here tonight … to ask why," Lum said. "Why can't we get a deal done that benefits the property, the city, the county, the school board and all other stakeholders. Why are there so many hurdles and obstructions to a development that we've encountered and we've taken five years and we're no longer close to it." Scheufler spoke about the costs to the city of the project and litigation so far, which DBR's lawyers calculated at $5.5 million, including legal fees and the costs of the remediation work the company had carried out itself. DBR has been working on remediating flooding on the Reaser Pointe Crossing property and billing the city for that work for several months, but the counterclaim made by the city argues that DBR was not authorized to do so. Martinsek said that it was confusing to her why the city and DBR had not been able to come to an agreement and why the city had not considered a new Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement to fund the public improvements and remediation to make the project happen. "Mr. Reaser has asked me to to extend an offer for a meeting," she said. "The DBR team would like to sit down city government, the mayor, Council and all other department heads critical to this project … we can see if we can resolve these issues. Mr. Reaser's hope is that a real open and honest discussion of the merits of this project is the best way to cut through what has become an unfortunate standoff, which is not in anyone's interest." Deery said that she would be open to such a meeting with DBR and that she would defer to Administrative Legal Counsel David Graves as well as outside legal counselors Russ Balthis and Steve Friedman as to which parties on the city's side should participate in any potential meeting. Contact Owen MacMillan at (440) 329-7123 or omacmillan@chroniclet.com.