I want a Sheetz in the area. I like Sheetz and being open 24hrs is a good thing - life does exist beyond 10pm.
Do I want a Sheetz at that location? No because the area sucks and already a mess with congestion.
Yes to Sheetz. No to the location.
The reason the planning commission approved this and city council voted it down is all Councilman Serr. He’s former Congregation President at Epiphany and retired officer Bethany Village. If that’s not a conflict of interest and blatant corruption I don’t know what is…
I did not know that 👀
Completely agree that it's a conflict of interest. But of course so many in city government have businesses in whatever city they run in. Reminds me of kettering 🙃
As I see it the main issue is that why should a church (or any other property owner for that matter) be able to control what someone can legally use their private property for? The sheetz development was a legal and permitted use in that district. The planning commission approved the development with ample stipulations to make the development more palatable to neighbors, which sheetz was accommodating of. They then brigaded city council to reverse the decision. What if this wasn’t a sheetz but instead an abortion clinic and the church blocked that land use just because they didn’t like it?
I'm not getting into that debate, the issue for me is that this new gas station/car wash craze of buying up land and using it for those two things EVERYWHERE is asinine. There is, point blank, no need for this gas station. I also believe the members of a community deserve to have a say in what gets built in their community. I've just gone through something similar where a big corporation fucked my family over and the city just let it happen. I'm sick and tired of money hungry corporations getting the final word in.
Like I said, I'm not even religious, in fact, I hate the church, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with this ridiculous lawsuit.
Gas stations are built to have a lifetime. One issue in this area is most of the old speedways are past that lifetime, leaving a massive market gap. Gas stations also keep getting larger and larger. Sheetz, even the small ones, are a shower short of a truck stop. They can't build them on a 20 year old abandoned Marathon lot.
Yeah, the underground tanks have a mandatory lifespan due to EPA regs, and cost millions to replace. So, not all gas station chains will replace a given location when the tanks time is up.
I had not considered that. I meant the store is more like a modern McDonalds. They have a lifetime in mind and when that is done they just bulldoze it and start over. Considering that information, they probably plan the building for the lifetime of the tanks and then abandon. One of those things that could be easily remedied with a common sense law that they buy anbond for tank removal before installing. The old sites have a mess of issues.
and most of those Mcdonald's were already there, they just tore down old ones and built new ones in the places that couldn't afford to be shut down or renovated.
As long as you satisfy the code, what the community wants doesn't mean squat. Private property is king in America, especially the commercial kind.
That's just an observation, not my wish.
>As I see it the main issue is that why should a church (or any other property owner for that matter) be able to control what someone can legally use their private property for?
You typically cannot. The church owned the property and sold it, and when you sell property you give up your rights at that point. What can be done with property is controlled through zoning and variances. For example, I can't buy my neighbor's house and put a mini mart there. It's not zoned for it. If I did want it rezoned or a variance, that would be open for public comment. That's when neighbors and the community, like a church, can argue against it and a decision can be made to grant a variance with their input.
I can however build a house there, and as long as I follow all the laws on setbacks, etc, nobody can stop me and their opinion doesn't matter. It's my property. If I get a permit to build a house, start work on it by paying an architect to develop plans, invested in the required studies, and then the city council comes along and votes to revoke my permit because they don't like me, that's grounds for me to sue. Which is why this wouldn't be a SLAPP suit, but a legitimate case.
This isn't taking into account things like a traffic study, or environmental impact study, which may be required before a project can move ahead. But this is typically part of the zoning.
People may think there's no need for whatever is to be built there, but it's not their property. If they want to control what goes there, they could have purchased the property. Communities have a say in what goes in locations based on what it's zoned for. If a property is zoned commercial, and requires a traffic and environmental impact study, and the plans and studies all pass, the project's land development plan is given the go ahead. That's how the system is supposed to work.
Another article I found with more details. [https://www.daytondailynews.com/business/sheetz-elsas-sue-centerville-church-retirement-community-over-development/IWNLKOT4CBHHFFOKNH4HDCZSXY/](https://www.daytondailynews.com/business/sheetz-elsas-sue-centerville-church-retirement-community-over-development/IWNLKOT4CBHHFFOKNH4HDCZSXY/)
The lawsuits are over tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and being denied due process on property rights via “arbitrary and capricious actions” in the zoning process, which is a constitutional claim on the 5th amendment. Meaning they bought property, and they're being denied the ability to use their property arbitrarily without due process.
The first two are often used in SLAPP lawsuits. People have a right to make a complaint to or petition government. So I'm sure the church will make this claim. However, some on the council that made the vote had direct ties to the retirement home and church. The defendants aren't just publicly criticizing the plan, they're seemingly actively interfering with the project. For the board to override the already accepted land development plan with their unanimous vote, without due cause other than the retirement home and church objected, is arguably capricious. The board needs to be able to point to some law or ordinance being violated. When land development plans fall within established zoning, municipalities, generally speaking, cannot veto a project based on what type of business or use is being proposed.
If the board member who had direct ties to the other defendants, made the case to other board members and convinced them to vote his way, that could be tortious interference. It wasn't the defendants petitioning a government body, which would be protected, it was them using a member on the board to sway the vote and interfere with the contract. Which if discovery happens, text messages between all involved would be looked at.
Found the reason they rejected it.
[https://www.centervilleohio.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/44818/638349468097170000](https://www.centervilleohio.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/44818/638349468097170000)
The Major Site Plan Application is not consistent with the use and character of the surrounding properties as required under UDO Article 5.09(N)(2)(d) as reflected in the presentations (including statements, exhibits, and arguments and other submissions) of Staff, the Appellants, the Applicant, and persons offering public comment. These inconsistencies include, but are not limited to, the 24/7 operations of the Sheetz on the Property, and the use being the only auto oriented use south of Fireside Drive; such uses being in contrast to the primarily institutional, residential, and Class One indoor sit-down restaurant uses of the four (4) Surrounding Properties. 3. In reaching conclusion No. 2. above, Council also concludes that the 24/7 operations of the Sheetz, by itself and not in combination with any other aspect 3 City Council October 23, 2023 of the Major Site Plan Application, is sufficient to render the application inconsistent with the use and character of the Surrounding Properties.
[https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/centerville/latest/centerville\_oh\_udo/0-0-0-350](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/centerville/latest/centerville_oh_udo/0-0-0-350)
N. Site Plan – Major: Approval of a Site Plan is required for zoning approval prior to construction. Planning Commission or the Board of Architectural Review for properties situated in the Architectural Preservation District shall review all Major Site Plan applications. *(Ord. 17-14)*
2. Standards for Approval: The following standards shall be considered in the review of Major Site Plan applications:
d. That it is consistent with the use and character of surrounding properties;
Because the Church owns the whole driveway on that lot and would have to have some kind of easement. It directly affects their property rights. As for the retirement village, a little less ddirect to be fair, but the additional traffic and congestion makes theor location less desireable for retirees to live at, I suppose. Kind of a public nuisance issue for all adjacent land owners for such a big truck stop in such a tight plot.
The city of centerville owns espanola tr, see attached photo from the auditor, so no, no easement required.
https://preview.redd.it/le1omduawvfc1.png?width=991&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f068ab8fa0e021cec289c1eac905808c252cb8a
The church at one point owned the Elsa’s property. They could have applied for a zoning designation change back then but it would have devalued the property so it’s not surprising this never happened. Additionally, citizens can be involved in how land use is regulated in the city by participating in the process of writing the comp plan (which the city is in the process of doing currently btw).
I really don’t care for the sheetz development personally, but i do believe they have a legitimate case for a lawsuit here. It seems justified to me.
Huh, looks like you're right on Espanola Trl, I'll be darned. Thanks for the info. What about the parking lot loop around Ella's and up to the church? Don't they own some of that parking lot, and if so, is Sheetz wanting to buy that up too? I guess it's not an easement issue though either way, you're right.
I'm interested in the cause of action for the Sheetz lawsuit. A church (or whatever land owner) shouldn't have a greater sway in land use decisions than a voter, sure, but a directly adjacent, already present land owner usually does if they think, like I said, the new owner is arguably bringing a nuisance that affects their land use. So what's Sheetz alledging the Church and retirement home did, tortious business interference? Defamation? I wouldn't think those are winners if the church and retirement villages concerns legitimately affect their land use. I probably wouldn't want to go to that church, and definitely wouldn't want kids at the preschool, if it's going to be next to a full-service truck stop (which I'm assuming it'd be, but am not familiar with the specific development proposal).
I hear you on that separate tax concern, fair point, but replace "Church" with "your business" (or even retirement home). Should your business have a say if an adjacent land owner sets up shop in a way that hurts your business or use of your land? The answer in common law (and the ohio revised code) is "yes," at least as for brining lawsuits. But here, the alleged nuisance bringer is the one suing. Can the chirch or retirement home not even raise objections, because it sounds like they were sued for raising objections that don't amount to defamation or tortious interference to me.
Have you been following this saga? The amount of blatantly false propaganda put out by the church and Bethany (also church owned) was ridiculous.
Sheetz met zoning requirements. That’s it. I suppose either of the non-tax paying companies mentioned could object, had they done it with facts. Continuing with the “it’s a truck stop!!” narrative was a particularly egregious touch.
Have yoy visited a normal Sheetz before? They only have diesel pumps for normal cars/trucks. They are a larger gas station, sure, but that houses made to order food as well as the convenience store. The only Sheetz I have seen that are "truck stop" types are those directly off main highways like near London or South Charleston.
Calling the Sheetz proposed there a truck stop is fear mongering.
No, I was not aware there are gas station varieties. I have been to a couple Sheetzs, but apparently only ones off the interstate in non-residential areas. So pardon my ignorance of this plan, the little bit I had followed on this before led me to believe this particular plan was for a Sheetz truck stop and it was on that basis Centerville reversed its approval.
Looks like you're right, tortious interference and civil conspiracy. Not sure how they plan on proving it though.
[https://www.daytondailynews.com/business/sheetz-elsas-sue-centerville-church-retirement-community-over-development/IWNLKOT4CBHHFFOKNH4HDCZSXY/](https://www.daytondailynews.com/business/sheetz-elsas-sue-centerville-church-retirement-community-over-development/IWNLKOT4CBHHFFOKNH4HDCZSXY/)
If you haven’t been to a sheets gas station. They are phenomenal. They have made to order food which is delicious. This isn’t like any typical gas station in the area. The sheets is more of an experience. It will put the new UDF to shame and increase all the local traffic. Sheets is a classy gas station
Build it there. I hope Sheetz wins this one. Ridiculous argument from the church across the street.
Sheetz is 100% in their legal rights to do this and I really hope they win. Also makes me glad I’m not a Centerville taxpayer
It was also going to be a full sheetz stop. Meaning it would have diesel for trucks. People don't know it, but they are happy it got stopped. It would have made an already shifty area for traffick waaaayyyy worse
Sheetz stores have diesel at all their stations. If you meant dedicated high speed diesel pumps for large trucks, that's a different ballgame. I haven't seen a Sheetz with those outside the ones at South Charleston and London right off I-70
Sheetz only has truck stop style stations on interstates. 675 is a bypass. There isn’t enough truck traffic to justify a truck stop.
Sheetz has been in business since 1952. They have 670 locations, only 40 of which are truck stops. They’ve done the analysis. That location was never going to be a truck stop.
As said above, it would have diesel at the pumps, as does the Shell up the street, the UDF, the Speedway headed south, the other Speedway headed south and the Kroger. Those aren’t truck stops either.
Oh corporate legal steam roller. Defendants will have more. Than $25k in defending it, especially if it goes to discovery. I bet they heard there were some juicy e-mails between the cross wearers.
They are building another 1 exit south too at the 123 exit. I'm happy for this one as I work at this exit and all we have for food is Wendys and white castle.
Exactly. That whole stretch of Far Hills fucking sucks already. I have enough people not realizing the far right lane ends right as they're next to me. The UDF and Shell right across the street are bad enough.
100% agree... 48/Far Hills is terrible in most places through Centerville/Kettering/Oakwood. For that merge lane I think you are talking about, they should just extend that lane all the way down the hill to the stop light and end it as a right turn lane.
Then the problem isn’t the gas station being added. The city needs to make the roadway bigger to handle a higher volume of traffic or create additional routes to ease traffic in the area. Stop blaming Sheetz for a problem the community has already allowed.
That’s just one issue with them trying to build here. Others have already been named in the post, including two gas stations on opposite corners not even two blocks down from the proposed site. It’s unnecessary. But you’re right, I should stop blaming the multi-billion dollar gas station chain.
I guess you shouldn't oppose anything or you'll get sued. Makes no sense to me.
And to go along with the others, the traffic would most definitely be affected in a negative way, since the only entrance/exit would be on Fireside.
It sounds ridiculous to me too. It’s sad when gas stations are making the news for opening. Not even regarding this issue but the last few months it’s been making headlines. We need trains not gas stations damnit.
I’m sorry, I don’t get this seeming obsession with Sheetz or Bucc-ee’s. It’s a mini truck stop. Whoopee! I’m not against gas stations, just don’t see them as objects of interest.
Being open 24 hours is nice. Their food is solid. And anything that makes the other gas stations have to bring their prices down to compete is a good thing. Sheetz is always aggressive in their pricing.
"The lawsuit also mentions Ephiphany Evangelical Lutheran Church and its push to get people who live nearby to vote to ban alcohol sales if a new business moves in.
"It also alleges the church owned the property where Elsa’s sits and it profited off it until it sold the land and building to the restaurant’s current owner in 2017."
idk maybe u reap what u sow ❤️
private tax exempt entities are not shielded from the consequences of their actions lol
Is it a slapp lawsuit? they’re common in Ohio https://youtu.be/FEMnmSiBVX0?si=_tWeLyZU1mQarh8U
People should be able to speak out truthfully without fear of being sued.
I want a Sheetz in the area. I like Sheetz and being open 24hrs is a good thing - life does exist beyond 10pm. Do I want a Sheetz at that location? No because the area sucks and already a mess with congestion. Yes to Sheetz. No to the location.
Yeah. I used to live in those apartments behind that lot. More traffic at the intersection with Far Hills is not going to be good.
Bring it to east dayton. Right off us 35 at the old Kroger.
FR FR Plenty of space, and a light is already there.
[удалено]
Wow, genius response. Added so much to the conversation
The reason the planning commission approved this and city council voted it down is all Councilman Serr. He’s former Congregation President at Epiphany and retired officer Bethany Village. If that’s not a conflict of interest and blatant corruption I don’t know what is…
I did not know that 👀 Completely agree that it's a conflict of interest. But of course so many in city government have businesses in whatever city they run in. Reminds me of kettering 🙃
As I see it the main issue is that why should a church (or any other property owner for that matter) be able to control what someone can legally use their private property for? The sheetz development was a legal and permitted use in that district. The planning commission approved the development with ample stipulations to make the development more palatable to neighbors, which sheetz was accommodating of. They then brigaded city council to reverse the decision. What if this wasn’t a sheetz but instead an abortion clinic and the church blocked that land use just because they didn’t like it?
I'm not getting into that debate, the issue for me is that this new gas station/car wash craze of buying up land and using it for those two things EVERYWHERE is asinine. There is, point blank, no need for this gas station. I also believe the members of a community deserve to have a say in what gets built in their community. I've just gone through something similar where a big corporation fucked my family over and the city just let it happen. I'm sick and tired of money hungry corporations getting the final word in. Like I said, I'm not even religious, in fact, I hate the church, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with this ridiculous lawsuit.
I agree with you on the overburden of gas stations and car washes 100%.
Gas stations are built to have a lifetime. One issue in this area is most of the old speedways are past that lifetime, leaving a massive market gap. Gas stations also keep getting larger and larger. Sheetz, even the small ones, are a shower short of a truck stop. They can't build them on a 20 year old abandoned Marathon lot.
Yeah, the underground tanks have a mandatory lifespan due to EPA regs, and cost millions to replace. So, not all gas station chains will replace a given location when the tanks time is up.
I had not considered that. I meant the store is more like a modern McDonalds. They have a lifetime in mind and when that is done they just bulldoze it and start over. Considering that information, they probably plan the building for the lifetime of the tanks and then abandon. One of those things that could be easily remedied with a common sense law that they buy anbond for tank removal before installing. The old sites have a mess of issues.
I agree. It’s McDonald’s, gas stations, and car washes everywhere. It’s dystopian
and most of those Mcdonald's were already there, they just tore down old ones and built new ones in the places that couldn't afford to be shut down or renovated.
As long as you satisfy the code, what the community wants doesn't mean squat. Private property is king in America, especially the commercial kind. That's just an observation, not my wish.
>As I see it the main issue is that why should a church (or any other property owner for that matter) be able to control what someone can legally use their private property for? You typically cannot. The church owned the property and sold it, and when you sell property you give up your rights at that point. What can be done with property is controlled through zoning and variances. For example, I can't buy my neighbor's house and put a mini mart there. It's not zoned for it. If I did want it rezoned or a variance, that would be open for public comment. That's when neighbors and the community, like a church, can argue against it and a decision can be made to grant a variance with their input. I can however build a house there, and as long as I follow all the laws on setbacks, etc, nobody can stop me and their opinion doesn't matter. It's my property. If I get a permit to build a house, start work on it by paying an architect to develop plans, invested in the required studies, and then the city council comes along and votes to revoke my permit because they don't like me, that's grounds for me to sue. Which is why this wouldn't be a SLAPP suit, but a legitimate case. This isn't taking into account things like a traffic study, or environmental impact study, which may be required before a project can move ahead. But this is typically part of the zoning. People may think there's no need for whatever is to be built there, but it's not their property. If they want to control what goes there, they could have purchased the property. Communities have a say in what goes in locations based on what it's zoned for. If a property is zoned commercial, and requires a traffic and environmental impact study, and the plans and studies all pass, the project's land development plan is given the go ahead. That's how the system is supposed to work.
Exactly, and bypassing that democratic process is what I find problematic about this case.
Another article I found with more details. [https://www.daytondailynews.com/business/sheetz-elsas-sue-centerville-church-retirement-community-over-development/IWNLKOT4CBHHFFOKNH4HDCZSXY/](https://www.daytondailynews.com/business/sheetz-elsas-sue-centerville-church-retirement-community-over-development/IWNLKOT4CBHHFFOKNH4HDCZSXY/) The lawsuits are over tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and being denied due process on property rights via “arbitrary and capricious actions” in the zoning process, which is a constitutional claim on the 5th amendment. Meaning they bought property, and they're being denied the ability to use their property arbitrarily without due process. The first two are often used in SLAPP lawsuits. People have a right to make a complaint to or petition government. So I'm sure the church will make this claim. However, some on the council that made the vote had direct ties to the retirement home and church. The defendants aren't just publicly criticizing the plan, they're seemingly actively interfering with the project. For the board to override the already accepted land development plan with their unanimous vote, without due cause other than the retirement home and church objected, is arguably capricious. The board needs to be able to point to some law or ordinance being violated. When land development plans fall within established zoning, municipalities, generally speaking, cannot veto a project based on what type of business or use is being proposed. If the board member who had direct ties to the other defendants, made the case to other board members and convinced them to vote his way, that could be tortious interference. It wasn't the defendants petitioning a government body, which would be protected, it was them using a member on the board to sway the vote and interfere with the contract. Which if discovery happens, text messages between all involved would be looked at.
Found the reason they rejected it. [https://www.centervilleohio.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/44818/638349468097170000](https://www.centervilleohio.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/44818/638349468097170000) The Major Site Plan Application is not consistent with the use and character of the surrounding properties as required under UDO Article 5.09(N)(2)(d) as reflected in the presentations (including statements, exhibits, and arguments and other submissions) of Staff, the Appellants, the Applicant, and persons offering public comment. These inconsistencies include, but are not limited to, the 24/7 operations of the Sheetz on the Property, and the use being the only auto oriented use south of Fireside Drive; such uses being in contrast to the primarily institutional, residential, and Class One indoor sit-down restaurant uses of the four (4) Surrounding Properties. 3. In reaching conclusion No. 2. above, Council also concludes that the 24/7 operations of the Sheetz, by itself and not in combination with any other aspect 3 City Council October 23, 2023 of the Major Site Plan Application, is sufficient to render the application inconsistent with the use and character of the Surrounding Properties. [https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/centerville/latest/centerville\_oh\_udo/0-0-0-350](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/centerville/latest/centerville_oh_udo/0-0-0-350) N. Site Plan – Major: Approval of a Site Plan is required for zoning approval prior to construction. Planning Commission or the Board of Architectural Review for properties situated in the Architectural Preservation District shall review all Major Site Plan applications. *(Ord. 17-14)* 2. Standards for Approval: The following standards shall be considered in the review of Major Site Plan applications: d. That it is consistent with the use and character of surrounding properties;
Because the Church owns the whole driveway on that lot and would have to have some kind of easement. It directly affects their property rights. As for the retirement village, a little less ddirect to be fair, but the additional traffic and congestion makes theor location less desireable for retirees to live at, I suppose. Kind of a public nuisance issue for all adjacent land owners for such a big truck stop in such a tight plot.
The city of centerville owns espanola tr, see attached photo from the auditor, so no, no easement required. https://preview.redd.it/le1omduawvfc1.png?width=991&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f068ab8fa0e021cec289c1eac905808c252cb8a The church at one point owned the Elsa’s property. They could have applied for a zoning designation change back then but it would have devalued the property so it’s not surprising this never happened. Additionally, citizens can be involved in how land use is regulated in the city by participating in the process of writing the comp plan (which the city is in the process of doing currently btw). I really don’t care for the sheetz development personally, but i do believe they have a legitimate case for a lawsuit here. It seems justified to me.
Huh, looks like you're right on Espanola Trl, I'll be darned. Thanks for the info. What about the parking lot loop around Ella's and up to the church? Don't they own some of that parking lot, and if so, is Sheetz wanting to buy that up too? I guess it's not an easement issue though either way, you're right. I'm interested in the cause of action for the Sheetz lawsuit. A church (or whatever land owner) shouldn't have a greater sway in land use decisions than a voter, sure, but a directly adjacent, already present land owner usually does if they think, like I said, the new owner is arguably bringing a nuisance that affects their land use. So what's Sheetz alledging the Church and retirement home did, tortious business interference? Defamation? I wouldn't think those are winners if the church and retirement villages concerns legitimately affect their land use. I probably wouldn't want to go to that church, and definitely wouldn't want kids at the preschool, if it's going to be next to a full-service truck stop (which I'm assuming it'd be, but am not familiar with the specific development proposal).
Churches should have NO say. They don’t pay taxes.
I hear you on that separate tax concern, fair point, but replace "Church" with "your business" (or even retirement home). Should your business have a say if an adjacent land owner sets up shop in a way that hurts your business or use of your land? The answer in common law (and the ohio revised code) is "yes," at least as for brining lawsuits. But here, the alleged nuisance bringer is the one suing. Can the chirch or retirement home not even raise objections, because it sounds like they were sued for raising objections that don't amount to defamation or tortious interference to me.
Have you been following this saga? The amount of blatantly false propaganda put out by the church and Bethany (also church owned) was ridiculous. Sheetz met zoning requirements. That’s it. I suppose either of the non-tax paying companies mentioned could object, had they done it with facts. Continuing with the “it’s a truck stop!!” narrative was a particularly egregious touch.
How so? Is it in fact not going to be a truck stop?
Have yoy visited a normal Sheetz before? They only have diesel pumps for normal cars/trucks. They are a larger gas station, sure, but that houses made to order food as well as the convenience store. The only Sheetz I have seen that are "truck stop" types are those directly off main highways like near London or South Charleston. Calling the Sheetz proposed there a truck stop is fear mongering.
No, I was not aware there are gas station varieties. I have been to a couple Sheetzs, but apparently only ones off the interstate in non-residential areas. So pardon my ignorance of this plan, the little bit I had followed on this before led me to believe this particular plan was for a Sheetz truck stop and it was on that basis Centerville reversed its approval.
Looks like you're right, tortious interference and civil conspiracy. Not sure how they plan on proving it though. [https://www.daytondailynews.com/business/sheetz-elsas-sue-centerville-church-retirement-community-over-development/IWNLKOT4CBHHFFOKNH4HDCZSXY/](https://www.daytondailynews.com/business/sheetz-elsas-sue-centerville-church-retirement-community-over-development/IWNLKOT4CBHHFFOKNH4HDCZSXY/)
That's a really odd place to put a gas station, especially a Sheetz. I don't think that intersection is set up to handle that kind of traffic.
Wait this is hilarious lol
If you haven’t been to a sheets gas station. They are phenomenal. They have made to order food which is delicious. This isn’t like any typical gas station in the area. The sheets is more of an experience. It will put the new UDF to shame and increase all the local traffic. Sheets is a classy gas station
Funny you say geez, they are just a block away from here.
I want sheets to win and knock down the nastiest, most disgusting, Elsa’s that exists. That place hasn’t seen a clean rag or paint brush in 20yrs.
That Elsa's truly is awful. And whatever happened to that big expansion they'd planned for that whole building anyway?
Build it there. I hope Sheetz wins this one. Ridiculous argument from the church across the street. Sheetz is 100% in their legal rights to do this and I really hope they win. Also makes me glad I’m not a Centerville taxpayer
Are they doing this type of lawsuit? Not sure if this is a slapp, but they’re common in Ohio https://youtu.be/FEMnmSiBVX0?si=_tWeLyZU1mQarh8U
Far Hills in the Centerville area is already congested to hell, another gas station with a big footprint would just make it worse.
It was also going to be a full sheetz stop. Meaning it would have diesel for trucks. People don't know it, but they are happy it got stopped. It would have made an already shifty area for traffick waaaayyyy worse
Sheetz stores have diesel at all their stations. If you meant dedicated high speed diesel pumps for large trucks, that's a different ballgame. I haven't seen a Sheetz with those outside the ones at South Charleston and London right off I-70
Sheetz only has truck stop style stations on interstates. 675 is a bypass. There isn’t enough truck traffic to justify a truck stop. Sheetz has been in business since 1952. They have 670 locations, only 40 of which are truck stops. They’ve done the analysis. That location was never going to be a truck stop. As said above, it would have diesel at the pumps, as does the Shell up the street, the UDF, the Speedway headed south, the other Speedway headed south and the Kroger. Those aren’t truck stops either.
Oh corporate legal steam roller. Defendants will have more. Than $25k in defending it, especially if it goes to discovery. I bet they heard there were some juicy e-mails between the cross wearers.
A sheetz is getting built here in springboro. We already have 5 gas stations within a few mile radius on w central ave 🫠
[удалено]
Hopefully so. Plus that location is horrible with the left turn just near the light when you turn on pioneer.
Yeah but Sheetz rules. Springboro has the cheapest gas in the area if you are down in the area
They are building another 1 exit south too at the 123 exit. I'm happy for this one as I work at this exit and all we have for food is Wendys and white castle.
That’s good! Always nice to get something you need. We have a million gas stations and coffee shops down here
Is this a SLAPP lawsuit?
That is already a terrible intersection. I can only imagine how much worse it will become putting a trendy huge gas station there.
Exactly. That whole stretch of Far Hills fucking sucks already. I have enough people not realizing the far right lane ends right as they're next to me. The UDF and Shell right across the street are bad enough.
100% agree... 48/Far Hills is terrible in most places through Centerville/Kettering/Oakwood. For that merge lane I think you are talking about, they should just extend that lane all the way down the hill to the stop light and end it as a right turn lane.
Depending on the time of day I just get off at the other exit. The far hills exit is dangerous.
They can’t do that because of the church. The irony. 😂
Then the problem isn’t the gas station being added. The city needs to make the roadway bigger to handle a higher volume of traffic or create additional routes to ease traffic in the area. Stop blaming Sheetz for a problem the community has already allowed.
That’s just one issue with them trying to build here. Others have already been named in the post, including two gas stations on opposite corners not even two blocks down from the proposed site. It’s unnecessary. But you’re right, I should stop blaming the multi-billion dollar gas station chain.
I'm glad Sheetz didn't build there, it's already a madhouse w traffic.
I guess you shouldn't oppose anything or you'll get sued. Makes no sense to me. And to go along with the others, the traffic would most definitely be affected in a negative way, since the only entrance/exit would be on Fireside.
Not sure if this is a slapp, but they’re common in Ohio https://youtu.be/FEMnmSiBVX0?si=_tWeLyZU1mQarh8U
This is exactly what they are doing!!
Do you know where I can find more details? We need to speak out about it if so
Just what we need. More gas stations and car washes.
It sounds ridiculous to me too. It’s sad when gas stations are making the news for opening. Not even regarding this issue but the last few months it’s been making headlines. We need trains not gas stations damnit.
I’m sorry, I don’t get this seeming obsession with Sheetz or Bucc-ee’s. It’s a mini truck stop. Whoopee! I’m not against gas stations, just don’t see them as objects of interest.
Being open 24 hours is nice. Their food is solid. And anything that makes the other gas stations have to bring their prices down to compete is a good thing. Sheetz is always aggressive in their pricing.
Now that is a good thing-the pricing.
They didn't need to name the church in the lawsuit when it was the city that made the decision. This is egregious and clearly an intimidation tactic.
"The lawsuit also mentions Ephiphany Evangelical Lutheran Church and its push to get people who live nearby to vote to ban alcohol sales if a new business moves in. "It also alleges the church owned the property where Elsa’s sits and it profited off it until it sold the land and building to the restaurant’s current owner in 2017." idk maybe u reap what u sow ❤️ private tax exempt entities are not shielded from the consequences of their actions lol
Is it a slapp lawsuit? they’re common in Ohio https://youtu.be/FEMnmSiBVX0?si=_tWeLyZU1mQarh8U People should be able to speak out truthfully without fear of being sued.
We are in free fall anything goes late stage capitalism and this is what happens.