[ back ]
Court-ordered rezoning is en route to ballot
(by Sue Reid - June 09, 2010)
Court-ordered rezoning is en route to ballot
By SUE REID
Solon City Council has referred a court-ordered rezoning of approximately 2.45 acres at the southeast corner of SOM Center (Route 91) and Miles roads to the city's planning commission for review.
Parkstone Capital Partners, which owns the land, sued the city in October 2008, arguing that it could not develop the three contiguous properties under the current zoning, which is R-1-D one-acre, single-family residential.
The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas upheld the owner's contention and ordered the city to change the zoning.
Rezoning is to be on this November's ballot for Solon voters to decide.
Solon Law Director David J. Matty explained to City Council Monday that rezoning of the property must occur due to the ruling, which the city received in March.
"It should be noted that the failure of the city to proactively rezone the property in accordance with the court order will inevitably result in a court-imposed rezoning," Mr. Matty said. "In this case, the court would not be limited to R-2 two-family residential."
The court upheld Parkstone's contention that the current zoning is inappropriate and ordered that the city propose a more appropriate zoning for the property on this November's ballot, Mr. Matty said.
"The courts determined that the current single-family zoning was not economically feasible for the developer and they should be entitled to higher-density zoning," Shana Samson, of Mr. Matty's office, said.
But according to city charter, Solon cannot rezone the property without putting it to a vote of the people.
Ms. Samson said the court originally ordered the rezoning to appear on this May's ballot, but the city's policies and procedures did not give it enough time to make it to that ballot.
The developer's original request for C-4 commercial zoning was denied by City Council in August 2008. Ms. Samson said that request was denied, because the zoning was inappropriate in that area due to the fact that the back of the property abuts residential development. C-4 motor service commercial is an intensive commercial district, she noted, and usually is limited to highway interchanges.
Originally, the developer had requested that the court rezone the property to C-4 commercial and later amended its request to R-2 two-family residential, in order to build three two-family homes there.
R-2 is the next classification on the continuum above the existing R-1 single-family zoning.
"The reason the R-2 makes sense is because it's the next zoning up from R-1," Solon Planning Director Robert S. Frankland said. "It will help to protect the surrounding residential uses the best," he said.
"Being proactive in this will prevent the court from imposing zoning on the city. If the courts do impose zoning, they will look at surrounding land uses. Across the street is commercial," Mr. Frankland noted. "The city could possibly have commercial imposed on that property if we don't rezone it ourselves," he said.
In the ruling, the court ordered the city to rezone the property in a "constitutional manner."
"We definitely argued that the current zoning is appropriate," Ms. Samson said, "but we have to look at the alternative, which is commercial zoning, which could have much more of an impact then two family."
She said there never was a plan from the developer submitted to the city when it made the original request. "We still don't have a plan from them as to what they want to do."
Ms. Samson said that property across the street from the land in question is commercially zoned in Orange Village.
Referring the matter to the planning commission is the first step in the rezoning process, she said. The charter deadline to send the proposal to the board of elections is Sept. 3.
[ back ]
