[ back ]
Chagrin condo plan draws earnest opposition
(by Barbara Christian - January 13, 2010)
Chagrin condo plan draws earnest opposition
By BARBARA CHRISTIAN
Chagrin Falls Village Council's decision on three variances to permit a developer to build a two-family house on West Orange Street was postponed Monday following separate pleas from two residents.
Next-door neighbor Valerie Bertsch, whose home is behind the proposed structure, asked that her property values and quality of life be considered.
"I am convinced the board of zoning appeals and Village Council are not taking into consideration my concerns about the adjoining property," she said in a written statement. She said it was her understanding that the purpose of zoning laws is to assure character, that the village remain stable and that homeowners' investments are protected.
Mrs. Bertsch, whose comments were read aloud in her absence, told council that zoning regulations are supposed to promote the good for every resident, "rather than further the desires of a particular group ..."
"How does building a huge condo promote the good of all the people in this community?" she asked. "I am part of the community, and I feel that I am being ignored to further the private interests of the developer and the builder," Mrs. Bertsch said.
"You are interfering with my rights, and, because of the scale of the proposed project, my property value will be adversely affected (and) the view I currently enjoy from three of my windows and my deck will be totally obstructed," she said.
Former Councilwoman Kathryn Watterson attended the meeting in support of the Bertsch family and asked council if it could "truthfully say that substantial justice is done ... when the home the Bertsches have lived in for 20 years is significantly reduced in value due to variances (given) by their government?
"At what point does your action become a form of eminent domain (taking) without any hope of compensation?" she asked.
Mrs. Watterson told council that the variances are substantial and suggested that members read the board of zoning appeals explanatory minutes before making a decision.
Those minutes had not been transcribed and were unavailable to council on Monday. It was for that reason, and at the suggestion of Councilwoman Janis Evans, that council's vote was postponed.
The variances council was to have voted on were recommended by the appeals board. They were: forgiveness for lot coverage, which is limited to 27 percent, while developer Robert Vitt plans a structure covering almost 34 percent; the code's rear-yard depth requirement of 30 feet minimum but which is 5 feet in Mr. Vitt's plan; and against the code's 35-foot maximum dwelling height but which is 46 feet in the proposed plan.
She also provided the developer's drawing showing the new two-family home's rooftop above the Bertsch family's rooftop.
The new home would be three stories tall from the Bertsch home point of view and, due to the slope of the land, is four stories from the West Orange Street side.
Mrs. Watterson said, "Your common sense should tell you that the desirability and resale value of the (Bertsch) home is considerably diminished by the proposed construction."
She also asked if Mr. Vitt purchased the property knowing about all the restrictions that would require variances. If that were so, she asked, are the "circumstances self created?"
To alleviate the impact on the Bertsch family's home, Mrs. Watterson suggested that council consider asking Mr. Vitt to exchange the two-family home at the Bertsch property line with the single-family home now situated at the west end of the development.
"We citizens rely on you to protect our investment (and) in a larger sense we expect you to encourage responsible development that will add to the tax duplicate and help pay for our excellent services," Mrs. Watterson said.
In addition, she said the job of council is to protect neighborhoods by encouraging compatible development, and "not granting privilege to some at the expense of others."
"Please use the powers we entrust to you to deny these variances and to plan toward an accommodation that will work to the benefit of all," she concluded.
Mrs. Bertsch said elected officials "are to serve the people that live in the village (and these) do not include Mr. Vitt and (builder Bradford Remmington)."
Both women offered copies of their written remarks to council and for the record.
Mrs. Watterson said the two minutes allotted for public comment on the agenda did not provide enough time to present a case.
[ back ]
