Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Butternut Ridge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Olmsted residents urge council to block Butternut Ridge rezoning
Summary
Dozens of residents told the City Council on Nov. 18 that a proposed rezoning on Butternut Ridge Road would conflict with the 2025 master plan and the historic district; the administration said due process will proceed and a Planning & Design Commission meeting was scheduled.
Dozens of North Olmsted residents pressed the City Council on Nov. 18 to oppose a proposed rezoning and development along Butternut Ridge Road, saying the plan conflicts with the city’s 2025 master plan and the area’s historic‑district guidelines.
"We’re not going to back off on this whatsoever," said Robert Sharp of 25407 Butternut Ridge, who described petitions and documented objections he said residents have compiled and pledged to continue organizing. Multiple neighbors said they were surprised by the proposal and criticized the city’s communications about the application.
The complaints were voiced during the meeting’s public‑comment period by residents who said a multifamily zoning change would alter neighborhood character, increase traffic and risk drainage problems. "This should have been a hard no from the beginning," said Ed Wiles, a Butternut Ridge resident. Steve Clark urged councilmembers to "deeply consider" residents’ concerns about traffic and lack of notice.
Economic Development Director Kevin Upton told the meeting that Ordinance 2025‑115 (introduced later in the agenda) would authorize a planning firm to study the Pine, Maple and Chestnut school sites, assess drainage and the "highest and best use" of the land, and include several public interactions over about a year. Mayor Dailey Jones reiterated that sponsoring zoning legislation is a procedural step that allows the process to move forward and does not indicate personal support for any project.
Why it matters: Residents said the proposed change would permit multifamily development in a single‑family historic neighborhood and, they argue, is inconsistent with planning and preservation standards cited in the city’s master plan. City officials said the review and hearing process remains the vehicle for evaluating those concerns.
What’s next: The Mayor and Council President said the Planning & Design Commission will consider related materials and the Commission meets next on Dec. 10; the Council extended certain Commission deadlines for a separate ordinance during the meeting but did not vote on any rezoning merits.
The meeting record shows the administration paused site‑plan proceedings while the Director of Law reviews compliance with a specific code requirement; Council members and residents were told public meetings and hearings about the project will be posted in the usual manner.
