04/27/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Thomas stated that it was the Commission's hope that the attorney for United Survey would meet with Mr. Dubelko regarding restricting the use of the property to multi-family in the event the property was sold. Mr. Dubelko stated that if United Survey is willing to accept the restriction, he will draft it and the proposal can go forward. He clarified that this proposal must be referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals and the restrictive covenant should be forwarded with the plat to that board. Mr. Tartabini would prefer to discuss this with the attorney. To avoid further confusion, Mr. Dubelko clarified that the restriction would indicate that United Survey could. continue to ttse the property for its present use, but if the ownership ehanged in the future that the use of the property would have to be restricted to a multi-family as it is defined in the code. At this time.the Planning Commission could favorably recommend the variance to the B.Z.A. so that the proposal go forward with the condition that the property r,rust be subjected to the restrictive covenant. Mr. Tartabini agreed. It was pointed out tha.t if United Survey refused the covenant, no variance could be granted. Mr. Dubelko advised that if the variance is granted by the B.Z.A., the-plat must be returned to the Commission for final approval. J. Thomas moved to refer the Assembly and Lot Split Plat of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the recommendation that they grant the variance for the frontage that is necessary subject to the acceptance by both United Survey and the Illuminating Company of a restrictive deed that will be prepared and submitted by our Law Department to accompany the proposal, this covenant should provide that G.E.I. and United Survey can continue with the present use of the property, but in the event that this property is transferred in the future or if there is a desire by C.aEaIo or United Survey to have any other use an it, it can only be a multi-family use, seconded by R. Tallon, and unanimously approved. 2) Axel Hoyer Subdivision. The proposal is to split off the rear portion of permanent parcel no. 231-7-20, located on the north side of Alexander Road, and join it to the south end of Permanent Parcel no. 231-7-73 located on the south end of the cul-de-sac of Greenwood Lane. Zoning is "C" Residence, single, and the proposal conforms to the Zoning code requirements for frontage and area. Mr. Hoyer explained that he was adding a half aere of land that now belongs to Mrs. Case to the rear of his property. Vice Chairman Orlowski explained that the zoning is "C" Residence, single, and the proposal conforms to the Zoning Code. The members had no problem with the request. A. Skoulis moved to approve the proposal to split off the rear portion of perrnanent parcel no. 231-7-20, located on the north side of Alexander Road, and join it to the south end of Permanent Parcel no. 231-7-73, located on the south end of the cul-de-sac of Greenwood Lane, seconded by R. Ta11on, and tmanimously approved. V. COMMUNICATIONS: Vice Chairman Orlowski advised that Chairman Gorris would like the members to review and amend, if necessary, a letter to Mr. Schultz of the County Planning Commission. The members had no cYranges and the letter Frill be forwarded. In reference to the sample ordinance submitted by County Planning which would be used to accept the Master Plan, Mr. Dubelko advised that the Law Department has determined that no ordinance would be required by charter, and the Council can approve by motion. 3