Enterprise Park in question after judge rules in favor of Howland wetlands
HOWLAND TWP., Ohio - Much is still up in the air when it the Enterprise Park Project after a federal judges ruling.
In October 2019, The Army Corps of Engineers originally approved a permit for the Cafaro Company, through subsidiary company North Eastwood LLC. to build a new hospital and business park on the Mosquito Creek wetlands in Howland, Ohio.
The Enterprise Park Project was originally going to include a new Mercy Health Hospital, and several other medical, office and residential buildings. The idea of Enterprise Park was in response to the Cafaro Company believing they have outgrown Warren St. Joseph Hospital on Eastland Ave.
When the Cafaro Company applied for their permit to the Army Corp., they included an evaluation of twenty three alternative proposed sites for the project, but concluded that none of these properties supplied the appropriate amenities needed for Enterprise Park. They also submitted different possible design plans to modify Warren St, Joseph Hospital, but found that it was also not suitable.
Judge Benita Pearson found the Army Corp. initially approved the Cafaro Company's findings about unsuitable locations and modifications, and gave them the requested permit without doing an investigation of their own.
Nonprofit environmental group Friends of the Mahoning River challenged the decision by the Army Corp., claiming that the Mosquito Creek wetlands are beneficial to the environment of Mahoning County. The group claims that the wetlands help filter the Mahoning River downstream, help mitigate flooding, and is home to many different plants, flowers and animals.
Judge Pearson noted conflicting comments about the population of Trumbull County. The Army Corp. concluded that the population of Trumbull County was increasing, and that the medical services provided by Enterprise Park would be needed. However, that was based on faulty information and it was later decided that the population was decreasing.
It was then decided by the Army Corp. that the population information that was given to them was incorrect, and was based on data from Warren County instead of the Town of Warren, which is not close to or in Warren County.
Judge Pearson cited the faulty population as why she ruled in favor of Friends of the Mahoning River.
The subsidiary of the Cafaro Company say the park was going to create over 2,000 jobs in the area, and proposed to build double the wetlands in a different location.
"This could be a tremendously impactful project for Trumbull County and the surrounding area," Cafaro Company spokesman Joe Bell told 21 News, in a 2018 interview.
Fast forward three years later, Bell says the company is still determining what steps it will take next.
"Our attorneys spent some time reviewing it. They're still analyzing [the ruling] because there are a variety of options and strategies they have to consider," he said. "And they're not going to say much more until they've actually decided in some future point to exercise the proper option."
As for if there's a possibility the company will fight to keep the complex in Howland, Bell said the option is not completely dead in the water.
"I can't really go into detail on that but there are a range of options, both legal and otherwise," he said. "So, we'll be looking at that. Our executive team will look at that and determine at some point which direction we want to go."
In a news release sent out Friday, Tom Smith, board chairperson of Friends of the Mahoning River defended the conservation side of the arugument, saying the Mosquito Creek Wetlands are one of a few pristine urban wetlands remaining in Ohio and across the country.
"These wetlands serve many vital functions, from flood control, to safeguarding water quality, to preserving the biodiversity of our region," Smith said. "The court's decision vindicates what we have been saying for years: because of surrounding socioeconomic factors and because of the critical ecological value of the wetlands that would be destroyed, this is simply an inappropriate site for this type of development, no matter what health care company might have occupied the site."
