08/11/1988 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Special Council Minutes of 8/11/88 Miscellaneous business: Councilman Bohlmann read a letter from Councilwoman Bahas asking council to unanimously vote against the repeal of Ordinance No. 88-80 and to allow the legislation to go on .the November ballot for all the residents to decide; promised to continue to work positively for North Olmsted's present as well as its future, regardless of the ballot outcome. Law Director Gareau reminded everyone that a "no" vote against the repeal of the ordinance would, in effect, be a "yes" vote for placing the issue on the ballot. -2- Mr. O'Grady stated that he was very supportive of the "Save Our Streets" group, many of whom were present this evening. He did not like the wording of the referendum petition; feels that many people were mislead into signing; feels it is important that all of council vote "no" on this issue tonight. Mr. Tallon moved to repeal Ordinance No. 88-80, second by Mr. Wilamosky, unani- mously defeated; Crocker/Stearns Extension will proceed on the ballot. Proceeding with the consideration of the Board of Zoning Appeal's approval of Sunset Memorial Park Association's request for ruling to determine whether the erection of a building to be used for services and viewing of deceased persons is a permitted use in a Residential District, Mr. McKay stated that should this be permitted, it will increase traffic in this particular area far more than a normal home would and he sees this as an expansion of a business venture into the residential area. In answer to Mr. Tallon's question, Law Director advised that there is no restriction as to day or night time use of the proposed structure as there is in any use permitted in any district. In answer to Mr. Wilamosky's question as to the board's initial refusal to rule on the issue and their sub- sequent decision to consider it, Law Director advised that upon hearing they had initially refused to rule on the proposal, he instructed the Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals that he had no right to legally refuse to rule on some- thing that someone had properly. requested. In light of that instruciton, the Chairman instructed the Clerk of Commissions to put the issue back on the agenda for the next meeting and appropriate action, as required by the statutes of the City of North Olmsted, would be taken. This was accomplished at the August 3rd meeting. In responding to Mr. McKay, Law Director advised that the rationale for their decision was that a cemetery is a permitted use in a residents district; a crematory, in a cemetery, is a permitted use in a residents district if it pre- dated the enactment of the Zoning Code, In looking at a cemetery being a per- mitted use, and a crematory, in certain circumstances, being a permitted use, the board could not see how a viewing place, or a chapel, as they called it, could be something that would not be a permitted use. Mr. McKay stated that he certainly did not hear the structure being called a "chapel". Mr. Gareau stated that it had been called a "chapel". In answer to President Saringer's question as to whether embalming would be a permitted use, Mr. Gareau responded that the answer was "no"; that was a specific question that was asked the board and it would not be a permitted use; the Sunset Memorial representatives stated that they did not intend to embalm. The minute there is embalming, the state statutes come into play and a true funeral home, as defined by state statute, which .includes em- balming, is not a permitted use in a residents district. Embalming is the key issue - they cannot embalm; further they said they did not intend to embalm.