Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables Center Street parking‑easement request after dispute over residential nonconforming use
Summary
An applicant seeking an easement for a parking expansion at 7461 Center Street asked the planning commission for relief to allow a barber to open; the commission tabled the application after staff and the city attorney cautioned that an easement could convert an adjacent residential lot to mixed use and remove its legal nonconforming status.
The Mentor Planning Commission on Feb. 6 tabled a site‑alteration and parking easement application for properties at 7461 and 7455 Center Street after a dispute over whether the neighboring residential lot could retain its existing residential use.
The applicant, who identified himself as Tony Centene (legal name Vincent Anthony), told the commission he had renovated the commercial building at 7461 and expanded a parking area without permits and now sought an easement to formalize parking that currently crosses a property line. He asked the commission to provide interim relief so his barber could occupy the space by March 1.
Kathy, planning department staff, said the parking lot crosses property lines and that the owner of the adjacent lot (7455) had submitted correspondence saying he intends to keep the dwelling as residential. Kathy explained legal guidance from the law department: a lot that contains a residential dwelling and a commercial parking use cannot lawfully be both; converting to an easement that creates shared parking would make the property mixed‑use and would remove its prior legal nonconforming residential status.
Mister Brown, city attorney, told the commission approving the easement "would turn it into really a mixed use property, and so it would remove that prior legal nonconforming status of it." Commissioners discussed minor engineering fixes — reestablishing the driveway, adding curb or wheel stops, and converting stalls to parallel parking — as potential ways to avoid an easement, but the applicant said those fixes could shift traffic onto a neighbor's parcel and he did not want to impose on neighbors.
Several commissioners urged the applicant and staff to work through parking layouts and come back with a revised site plan. Commissioner motioned to table the item; the roll call vote to table was unanimous.
No approval or variance was granted; staff said the applicant may pursue site plan revisions, a subdivision, or other property‑owner agreements to resolve the conflict.
