Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents object to planned sale of Cedar Road bluff parcels; committee refers proposal for more study
Summary
Neighbors told the Planning & Development Committee on April 23 they oppose sale of two Cedar Road bluff parcels to a developer proposing three for‑sale homes; the committee referred the proposal for further study and public engagement.
A proposed conveyance of two Cedar Road bluff parcels drew vocal neighborhood opposition at the April 23 Planning & Development Committee meeting and the committee agreed to take the matter to the Committee of the Whole for additional study and public engagement.
Developer Paul Volby, an architect and for‑sale housing developer who has presented prior plans to the city, described a three‑house project for the Cedar‑Fairmount corridor and said the proposal would replace underused parcels with high‑quality, for‑sale homes. Staff described proposed conveyance terms: $40,000 total for two lots, with $20,000 at closing and $20,000 due on sale of completed homes within 24 months; a reversion clause would return title to the city if no construction occurs within 24 months.
Residents objected to the sale on historical and safety grounds. Several speakers said the land had been donated or dedicated decades earlier with recorded deeds or local commitments for park or street‑widening purposes; residents asked staff to research deed language and earlier municipal actions. Kelly Opecek, a neighbor, said the bluff functions as a narrow, used public green edge with a narrow sidewalk and heavy car traffic and urged the city to instead invest in trees, sidewalk improvements and a safer public realm rather than housing on the site.
Why it matters: Cedar Road is a highly visible corridor into parts of Cleveland Heights; neighbors argued that the site carries historical covenants and that a better use would be improvements to the public right‑of‑way. Developers and some council members argued the parcels generate maintenance costs while sitting vacant and might be better used to add additional for‑sale housing.
Action: The committee referred the proposal to the Committee of the Whole for additional review, public notice and a formal community meeting. Staff said a public meeting and title search will be arranged; the committee asked staff to provide documentation of prior dedications or deed restrictions and accident/safety reports for the corridor.
Ending: Committee members said public outreach is required before final council action and asked staff to return with title research, public‑safety data and a formal community meeting schedule.
