10/01/1975 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Zoning Appeals 10-1-75 - 2 with Regional Planning Commission in Cuyahoga County, about 3 ? years as the Senior Planner in Lorain County. During his career Mr. Hill had experience with massive planning projects, updating of existing ordinances, or writing new ordinances, part of which duties would have been meeting with planning commissions and as- sisting them with items that are involved with zoning. Mr. Hill is a graduate of Univ?-rsity of Wisconsin with B. S. in landscape architecture; is author of 15 comprehensive plans and related documentso Chairman Ledvina said we will recognize this man is an authority on the subject and we will go on. Law Director Gareau then asked r1r. Hill if in his experience he had ever come aeross provision in the code Vahich is similar or identical to the item he just heard reviewed? Basica?ly what is the planning concept behind a provision of this nature? Mr. Hill explained the provision is in the code in situation as it is in North Olmsted where large amounts of land are zor_ed for business the residential is protected until such time «s economic conditions are such that there can be a change from residential. If this sort of provision were not followed an existing single family use would become a non conforming use. If this sort of provision were not al- lowed and if business-.:.-- use did not come for 10 or 15 or 20 years it would mean that single family could not expand its residential use. He mentioned the instance of a vacant parcel where a man is denied the use of his property if the economic pressures were not ? great enough for him to develop that property or have someone pur- chase it. LaVa Director Gareau asked Kx. Hil1, if he had reviewed the pertinent section of the North Olmsted zoning code. Mr. Hill had reviewed it. Law Director Gareau asked if he has an_ opinion as to whether or not multifaro.ily structures are permitted in a retail business district. Multifamily structures would be permitted only in a general retail business district9 only where they would be immediately adjacent to the property in question,Mr. Hill replied. Law Director Gareau then said 14r. Hill had heard testimony tonight in respect to an interpre- tation that if five miles dot:n the road or ten miles down the road there is a parcel which is adjacent to the retail business d.istrict zoned multifamily and that in effect makes it a permissive use five miles down the road; he asked Mr: Hill if that in his professional opinion is tenable. Mro Hill replied, no, that he would not say so; it makes very little sense in other words to do a plan, to be involved in a plan study, let's take in this instance a plan for retail business situation Vahere because of some situation existing some.miles down the road prevails, that interpretation would be sayirvg, almost, that you have no zoning provision with regard to multifamil.y. He would also say from his ex- perience in other communities that this is one particular area that greatly concerns many suburban communitieso Each area has to be ana- lyzed on its particular merits in terms of location and that sort of thing. ? I,aw Director Gareau said he had no further questions and invited rir. Ernest to question DZro Hil.l. Mr. Ernest mentioned instance in North Olmsted where multifamily abuts retail business. He suggested the,y must all be illegal. P+Ir. Hill said he d idn°t think he could ansher; if those buildings exist it must depend on circumstances and he thinks