Council approves rezoning to allow Walnut Hills Cemetery expansion, excludes one cluster of lots

Cincinnati City Council voted to change zoning for parcels owned by Walnut Hills Cemetery to allow a roughly 4.5-acre expansion of the cemetery, approving rezoning for three grouped areas and denying a fourth area that city planners and the City Planning Commission said should remain available for housing.

The change affects 26 vacant lots owned by the cemetery adjacent to the existing 40-acre Walnut Hills Cemetery at 3117 Victory Parkway. City planning staff said the cemetery opened in 1842, is one of the city’s longest operating cemeteries and currently has a wait list for burial plots.

City planning staffer Kyle Gibbs told the council the request would bring the subject parcels into the SF-4MH zoning district so the cemetery can expand. "The applicant is Miguel Smith Puncheon, on behalf of the property owner, Walnut Hills Cemetery Association," Gibbs said. He described the expansion area as divided into four subareas, with Area 1 planned as a gateway, Areas 2 and 4 planned for in‑ground burials and columbariums, and Area 3 identified by staff and the City Planning Commission as problematic because its narrow lots create frontage gaps along Gilbert Avenue.

Why this matters: planners and the neighborhood said the rezoning preserves green space, meets a demonstrated burial demand and helps maintain slopes and hillsides that are part of Walnut Hills’ character. Opponents and some commissioners worried about shrinking multifamily housing capacity along Gilbert Avenue if all cemetery‑owned parcels were rezoned.

During public comment, Tom Bittner, superintendent of Walnut Hills Cemetery, described remaining capacity and the benefit of the expansion: "We currently only have space for approximately, 750 to 800 burials remaining," he said, and added that the project "will give us another approximately 1,500 burials with cremation and ground burial, traditional burial, etcetera." Attorney Brian Groom, representing the applicant, said the properties at issue are vacant and owned by the cemetery and that the applicant has met repeatedly with the Walnut Hills Area Council.

Council members pressed the administration and applicant on multiple points. Council member Johnson sought and received confirmation from Gibbs that "no property owners will be losing their property or their homes as a result of this expansion." Vice Chair Victoria Parks asked about protections and landscaping for a nearby resident referred to in public comment; superintendent Bittner described plans to plant screening vegetation and said the cemetery had a "good report" with that neighbor.

City Planning Commission recommended approval for Areas 1, 2 and 4 and recommended denying rezoning for Area 3, saying planners preferred that those narrow lots either revert to housing or be subdivided to allow residential fronting on Gilbert with cemetery use at the rear. Gibbs told council that the Department of City Planning and Engagement and City Planning Commission were both comfortable with the partial approval approach.

Council then took a roll call on the zoning action. The body recorded affirmative votes for the rezoning recommendation as presented (approval for Areas 1, 2 and 4; denial for Area 3). Council member Jeffries, Council member Owens, Vice Mayor Kearney, Council member Parks, Council member Johnson, Council member Walsh, Council member Krammerding, Council member Albee and Council member Nolan all registered votes consistent with the motion during the roll call.

The council’s action advances the cemetery’s ability to obtain conditional use approval from the zoning hearing examiner for cemetery uses on the rezoned parcels, a step Gibbs noted will follow the council decision. The applicant outlined a multi‑phase timeline: Phase 1 (Areas 1 and 4) targeted for development in about three years; Phase 2 (Area 2) in roughly three to five years; Phase 3 (Area 3), if pursued, in eight to ten years.

Questions and next steps: the council action affects only cemetery‑owned parcels shown in the application; properties not owned by the cemetery were not rezoned. Council members and staff said any future change affecting privately owned homes would require a separate application. The city will file the presentation and the item will move forward in the administrative process for conditional use review and any required site permits.