11/13/1990 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J r ` Mrs. Duffy, had been at the meeting, but had left after he explained the proposal to her. T. Morgan moved to forward the proposal to install a 6 foot high chain link fence at Halleen Chevrolet to the Architectural Review Board asking that that Board make some recomnendations as to what other type of fencing would be appropriate and also request that the developers consider a fence like the fence on the west line of the Burger King property,"seconded by L. Orlowski., and tmanimously approved. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 1) Sunset Memorial Park Association Lot Split. The proposal is to subdivide permanent parcel No. 236-24-16, located on the east side of original Columbia Road north of sunset 14emorial Cemetery, into two (2) parcels. Zon;ng is "A" Residence, Single, entirely. Proposed parcel ; no. 2 does not conform to the Zoning code requirement for frontage. Mr. Zeigman, representing Sunset Memorial Park, advised that the entire parcel was Lmder 6 acres, zoned single family, and acquired to give the cemetery a new access to Coltnnbia Road from their service area which is located behind the C.E.I. substation. Currently delivery trucks must use the cemetery drives and are creating problems with the road and damaging trees overhanging the roads. The purpose of the lot split is to sell off the front parcel which contains a house and keep parcel Z which will be the access drive from Columbia Road to the barn and service area; the rear area of parcel 2 is mainly a ravine which goes down stream which is the northern boundary of the property and is basically tmbuildable. It was clarified that parcel one and the drive fronts on the new Columbia Road, just south of where old Colinnbia Road dead ends Parcel two is not actually landlocked since it abuts cemetery property in Olmsted Township. Parcel 2 is non conformi.ng since it does not have 80 foot frontage. Mr. Morgan stated that the Commission cannot approve a non-conforming lot, a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals would be required. A. Wilms, a neighbor who lives across from the property, maintain that half of parcel 2 is flat and could be used, he is concerned tha.t this property will be used commercially. Mr. jdilms was shown a plan of the entire area and was advised that this driveway is planned for an access drive to the storage area in the back. Assistant Law Director Dubelko clarified that the cemetery is on residentially zoned property and Building Commissioner Conway stated that a cemetery is a permitted use in a residential district. Mr. Wilms is concerned that parcel 2 would be used for cemetery lots. Mr. Morgan questioned if any residential property could be used for a cemetery. Mr. Gieser, attorney for the owners, stated that there were State codes requiring so much property for a cemetery. Mr. Dubelko stated that the code implies that a cemetery is a permitted use, but it does not expressly state that the cemeteries are a permitted use. Mr. Conway stated that the new codes have attempted to clarify this making it a conditional use which must be approved by the Planning Commission. There is a concern that the parcel in North Olmsted could be used for cemetery lots. Mr. Dubelko stated that in the past the codes were interpreted that it could be used as a cemetery. The owners maintain that they are going to sell parcel 1 as a residential use, parcel two is not usable for lots. Mr. Wilms believes that 50% of parcel 2 could be used and maintains that the real use of the drive would be to use it for a proposed viewing area. It was stated that that proposal was in litigation, and has nothing to do with this road. Mr. Jack, a neighbor who abuts both of these parcels, stated that he has no objection to the driveway and understands that ? the drive had to be position where it is because of a problem with a culvert. 5