Back Home Contact Us!

Boston Heights Overlook

This is a publication of Boston Heights Overlook. Not an official public document by, of or for the Village of Boston Heights OH.

Village of Boston Heights, Ohio
Special Council Meeting: Proposed Re-zoning Plan
05 June 2002

On 05 June 2002 the Council of the Village of Boston Heights Ohio conducted a Special Council Meeting as a public hearing to consider citizens' views on the Draft Rezoning Plan that was mailed during May. The plan was largely drafted by Councilor Mike Cheung at the 2001-2002 meetings of the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, with input from the Mayor, other members of those bodies, and the odd citizen or two. The Special Council Meeting occurred at the Boston Heights Village Hall, and followed the regular monthly meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals. Members of those bodies were in attendance as well.

These notes are unofficial observations by Boston Heights Overlook. Statements made by citizens and public officials have been paraphrased and summarized. Any and all errors are inadvertent. Please send any corrections to editor@bostonheight.org.

For the official minutes of this or any council meeting, please contact the Boston Heights Village Hall.

Dr. Mike Cheung began with a short history of the Draft Rezoning Plan. In summary, it appears that the intention of the Village is to consolidate, modernize and strengthen the Village zoning plan. The goal is to clarify and codify the intended land uses, and ward off future spot zoning as well as the repeated requests for large-scale rezoning that the village has received in recent years.

The floor was then opened to public comment.

• Ms. DiNovi stated that she represented Hudson Builders, which has property on Chittenden Road and the south village end of Akron-Cleveland Road. She stated that company's objection to the re-zoning of any of their property to GB zoning (the more restrictive of the two new zoning classes that permit retail business).
  Editor's note: The Summit County Auditor's online database does not show "Hudson Builders" as owning property, by name, in those areas, but various DiNovi persons and entities do own parcel 1300418 at the south end of the village (where there is a small house, apparently vacant), as well as what appears to be the adjacent parcels in Boston Township, 0700076 and 0700167.
• Mr. Ron Moeller of Ianwood Court (in the Ledges off of Olde 8 Rd) made a number of remarks and suggestions, and posed a few questions:
  A... inquired as to whether the Cuyahoga Valley National Park was being expanded, as shown by the increase in "green area" so noted as CVNP, from the old to the new proposed zoning map. After some consultation as to the source of this change, Dr. Cheung stated that the map showed only what the US government actually owned, and that the new map was intended to be more accurate and up-to-date in this regard. Village Solicitor Russ Pry added that the village had no power to exert zoning control over lands owned by the US government.
  B... asked if the indicated 1.5 acre minimum for residential property was currently in effect. The answer from Council was: "yes, for several years now."
  C... asked if multi-family residential would be permitted under the proposed plan. The answer from Council was: "no."
  D... indicated concern as to whether any change to the zoning of the Boston Hills Country Club golf course might open the Village to legal action for previously-denied zoning changes. Mr. Pry noted that the developer that had proposed a "mega-mall" for that property had never formally asked for a zoning change to allow it. He did not address the larger issue, e.g. for other parcels in the village.
  E... suggested an Architectural Review Board (perhaps akin to that of Hudson and other nearby communities). This suggestion was met with stony silence.
  F... asked about the possibility of future trailways connections within the village, specifically between the village park and the Bike & Hike trail, and the National Park. Dr. Cheung replied that while this may be a fine idea, there was currently no funding and no plan for such a development -- but also that the village zoning plan need not encompass it.
• Ms. Mary Griffiths, of Olde 8 Road, asked whether the Wooded View development's lot sizes met the 1.5 acres requirement, previously-mentioned. The reply was that these lots are 1.0 acre because their platting predated the 1.5 acre requirement (as of 1998?). She also indicated concern that any change to the zoning of the Boston Hills Country Club golf course might more easily allow a future request for rezoning it to prevail in court. Dr. Cheung noted that the proposed zoning merely removed golf courses from the allowable use of all residential property, so that the new zoning class proposed for the existing golf course was in fact the same as currently: residential or golf course use allowed.
• Mr. Mark Pennington, of Olde 8 Road, asked of the golf course zoning: why not leave things as they are?
• Mr. Probst (??) objected to the proposed change of zoning for property he owned at the south end of Olde 8 Road, near Route 303 (Streetsboro Road). The property is currently zoned R-1 for business, although it has a residential and business use now, and is proposed to be RES, residential. Dr. Cheung stated that the intention was to consolidate scattered parcels of business zoning into surrounding residential areas, and also to ward off inappropriate land uses immediately adjacent to residential areas. He also noted that business uses on such parcels would be "grandfathered", that is, allowed even after a zoning change until the existing use was no longer being carried out for a specified period of time. The property owner stated his view that this would lead to a reduction in the value of his property, as commercially-zoned property would be worth more than residential, at resale.
• There were a few questions asking for clarification on the matter of "grandfathered use", which were briefly addressed by Dr. Cheung, Russ Pry, and Mayor Ray McFall.
• Mr. Bob Bartko and Ms. Linda Bartko, of Grandview Drive (but apparently speaking of property on Olde 8 near Route 303, across from the former Bolin Oil gas station), also expressed objections to proposed change of commercial to residential zoning. Again, their concern was that resale value would be reduced. Dr. Cheung re-stated his remarks on grandfathered usage, and further noted that such usage could continue across the sale of the property.
• Mr. Seth Wells, who apparently rents or leases the Bartko property in question, added his similar objections, also pointing out the possibility of loss of resale value.
• Mr. Kris Lightcap, of Walters Road, noted that his new house just north of Hines Hill Road abutted the Papes "sheep farm" at that corner. He expressed his concern about proposed Office/Professional OP zoning for that 19 acres property. There were loud huzzahs from the audience at this, presumably from residents of the adjacent Ashbrooke West development.
  Editor's Note: Mr. Lightcap and residents of Ashbrooke West proper have been in frequent and vocal attendance at recent Planning Commission meetings that addressed future uses of this property.
• Mr. Bryan Kolleda, owner of the Moonbeam McSwine's restaurant at Hines Hills Road and Route 8, stated his objection to the proposed change in zoning for his property. The current zoning is B-1 commercial; the proposed zoning is GB General Business, the more restrictive of the two new "retail business" zoning classes. He felt that this change would have an adverse effect on the value of his property, which he stated he wished to sell.
• Mr. David Brown, of E. Boston Mills Road, asked about the proposed rezoning of the large vacant residential property north of Boston Mills and east of Route 8. This is the so-called "Alnola Farms South" property that was the subject of a recent request for rezoning to allow a shopping center development (which was denied by the Planning Commission). Dr. Cheung noted that the 76+ acre property was proposed to be rezoned to Office Professional OP, as the village elders felt that this was a realistic commercial use for that location, in that: adjacent areas of Hudson were so zoned; and OP would be the commercial use least objectionable to adjacent homeowners such as Mr. Brown.
• Mr. Brad Davis, of Wellington Court in Ashbrooke West, asked about the proposed Retail Business RB (and present B-1) commercial zoning on the west side of Brandywine Creek, opposite Ashbrooke West. He, or possibly Mr. Bush, wondered why it could not be make residential. Various village elders stated, essentially, that the village needed the income from commercial development that was not available from residential development.
• Mr. Mike Bush, of Colesbrooke Drive in Ashbrooke West, expressed similar sentiments.
• A number of unidentified citizens stated that current zoning regulations were not being enforced. This was apparently a reference to commercial uses of residential properties, presumably obnoxious uses, and perhaps also to the derelict house on Grandview Drive.
• Mr. Bill Hinkle, of East Boston Mills Road (the present editor of these notes), stated his concerns on a number of issues relating to re-zoning of residential properties to commercial uses, and to other commercial uses adjacent to residences. These concerns covered: requirements for extensive buffer yards, increased setbacks, restriction of direct commercial access to existing roadways, lighting restrictions, noise restrictions, food service restrictions, clear-cutting restrictions. These concerns were summarized in a written memo later presented to Dr. Cheung.
• Another unidentified citizen asked whether the former Lucerne factory property on Olde 8 Road was to be rezoned from B-1 commercial to RES residential, as shown on the proposed zoning map. Dr. Cheung replied that that was the intention, per the explanation previously given on consolidation of scattered commercial zoning, but that "grandfathered usage" would apply here as well.

As there were no further comments, the Mayor and Council adjourned the meeting. No formal action was taken by Council during this meeting.