03/09/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Columbia Road, Assistant Law Director Dubelko gave a brief synopsis of the history of the proposal. The Board of Zoning Appeals originally ruled that a chapel was a permitted use in a residential district, council then had to review this ruling within 30 days of the B.Z.A. meeting and at a regular meeting of Council, but no regular meetings were scheduled within the 30 day period. Council subsequently overruled B.Z.A. at a special meeting. Sunset Memorial Park took an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Judge Nugent reversed the decision of Council on a technical ground and made a decision that the proposal shotild be sent baclc to the B.Z.A. for reconsideration. The city and the Law Department was satisfied pith this, however, Sunset then appealed that decision to the Court of.Appeals and a panel of three judges decided that there were limitations in the Ohio Revised Code which prevented the Comanon Pleas Court from sending it back to the B.Z.A. and, based an this, the court stipulated that the decision of council was out and the B.Z.A. ruling was upheld. The city attempted to appeal the dec.ision to the Ohio Supreme Court who chose not to take in the appeal, and the city will have to live with the decision. Mr. Wilms objected vehemently pointing out that originally this was presented as a viewing parlor, and now they are calling it a chagel which is different, and he questioned if this was not the same as a funeral home. He was advised-that this. is not a funeral home since there is no embalming done on the site. He maintained that this is now a business since they are holding services. Mr. Dubelko stated that a one time a cemetery was a.permitted use in a residential business, and any accessory use would be permitted as long as it was not expressly permitted in a different district, whether or not it is a business is irrelevant. Mrso Baracski maintained that this was not a new use, they have been conducting this business in the other building. Mr. Dubelko stated that the B.Z.A. had the authority to make determinations or special rulings that pa.rticular uses which are not- specifically provided for in the code can be permitted. Their ruling has been upheld by the courts, but now all the city can do is to make sure the development eomplies to the city codes and has the least hal-mful impact on surrounding neighbors as is possible. Mr. Wilms maintained that this would devalue Yiis property; he objected.strenuously to the proposal and the fact that he was never. advised that it was going to court. Mrs. Schiely, who lives directly across the street from the proposed chapel, objected on the basis that the cemetery is a non-profit organization and the nhapel is a profit making business. She stated that other funeral: homes pay property taxes. Mrs. Baracski agreed that the cemetery was non-profit, but the funeral directors who use their faeilities do pay taxes. Mr. Baracski stated that they owned a house next door to the cemetery and did not believe this would devalue their property. Mrs. Schiely objected to the lights, traffic, noise, etc. that would be generated by this use and asked what kind of buffers they intended to install to shield them from the headl,ights ' in the parking lot and driveway. Mr. Baracski explained the proposal and landscape plans to the neighbors. Neighbors again objected that the cemetery did not pay taxes. Chairman Gorris explai.ned that tonight's discussion is to at-tempt to m-itigate any negative impact an their properties.. The neighbors then. agreed that they saould.prefer that that the new drive be eliminated and that the present drive be used for the chapel. Mr.:Steed, a resident who iives eloser to the main entrance, stated that he had no real problem with the cemetery, but the neighbors would prefer that the building be relocated further ba.ck into the property, if the building cannot be relocated, the main issues would be to mininLize the lights and reroute the traffic. The neighbors prefer not to look at a commercial piece of property. He pointed out that he had built a 6 foot mound to shield hi:s house from lights from the main drive. Mr. Wilms also objected because there were no street lights an that section of Columbia Road and restated other objections. " 11 2