09/23/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 1) Broxbourne Road Extensiou (east): Itnprovement Plans Revised. Continued fiom July 22, 1997 Plaiwing Commission meetiug. The proposal is to extend/coiltinue Broxbouiue Road (paveinent and water maui) approximately two hundred forty two (242) feet to the east witlun a platted right of way and fi•outing five (5) platted lots. Revised plans include an upgrading ofpavemeut standards, and a Dedication Plat for additional right of way on the north side of Broxbourne Road. Mr. Suhail, representing tlie developer, presented the proposal. He explained that the plans have been revised according the plauuing commission's recoinrnenciations. The road will be 28 feet wide in concrete, originally it was to be 16 feet wide asphalt. The cu]-de-sac coufoi-ns to city standards to accommodate fue tiucks aud school buses and he presented a plat which will, dedicating the right of way up to 28 feet and also includuig the proposed cul-de-sac. The coinments of the City of Cleveland Water Departinent have been included in the plans; and catch Uasins have been included for drainage. Regarding the concerns of Mrs. McCrone regarding adverse possession ou sublot 156, their research shows that a permit was granted to construct the shed ov Api71 26, 1977 by the City of North Olmsted and if the shed was consti-ucted on that date, there would iiot be the 21 years required for adverse possession. A letter to tlus effect has been sent to Mrs. McCrone's attorney who has discussed it with his client's attorney. Mrs. McCi-one stated that tlus shed had veeu a replacement shed for one that had been there for several years before. There has been a shed there since they constructed houses in the area. She did not know what cominunication her attoi-ney had witli theirs. Chaiimw Tallon advised that the letter stated that her attomey agreed that there was no adverse claim, so it appeared that her attorney agreed. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that the issue of adverse possession should be settled between the two parties privately, or in court. However, the issues that were referred to the Law Department regardins, the five non-couforiniug lots has Ueen researched, aud the code provides that if a lot was lawfully confoi7ning as of 1962, when the zoning code weut into effect, it would remain a lawfully non-confoi7ning lot ui the City of North Olinsted tuiless the adjacent lots were under cominou ownerslup. Their research showed that as of 1962 (numbering the lots from one through five), lots one aud two were under common ownerslup, as were four and five; the lot in the middles (lot 3), would be lawfiilly non-conforining. The others would require variauces to develop as platted. The ineinbers were not sure what district this was in, if it were iu "A" district, 80 feet would be requued; `B" would require 70 feet; and "C" would require 60 feet. Mr. Suhail advised that they owned lots 156, 158, and 160. Mr. Tallon advised that lots 156 aud 157 and lots 159 and lot 160 must be combiued into oue lot, or else they must apply for a variance. Lot 158 is grandfathered. Mr. Mowinski (speakiug from the audience) questioued tlus, since he owned two separate lots and another party owned tliree lots. Mr. Tallou explained that in 1962 when the code was passed, lots 1& 2 were owned by one person, lot 3 was owned by another persou, aud lots 4 and 5 were owned by one person. If there are two non-conforming lots, ownied by one person iu 1962, those two lots must be combined in order to develop thein since they are not legally non-covforming. Mr. Suhail questioned if there should not have beeu some sort of restrictions put ou the sale of the lots, and wondered how they could have been sold individually. 1VIr. DuUelko advised that they could still be sold, but the buyer should lcnow the zouing code before he buys a lot. Since theu• are two differeut owners who both want to build, they will have to go for variauces, or give owlerslul) to each other. Mr. Herbster suggested that they could buy all. the lots and comeback with 1 d1V1S10ll that meets the standards. Building Commissioner Couway advised that tlus issue would liave to be addressed ?before a buildiug permit. could be issued. Mr. Suhail noted that tlus hearing was to get the unprovements to Broxbourne Road approved. Mr. Mowinski questioned wluch lot would be lus and wluch would be the other persons. z .