Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition And Lot Split topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chagrin Falls board approves demolition variance at 108 East Summit to allow lot split
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a procedural variance allowing demolition at 108 East Summit Street before a replacement design is finalized so the 22,000-square-foot parcel can be split into two conforming lots; neighbors raised stormwater and hillside stabilization concerns and were told engineered controls and contractor bonding will be required.
The Chagrin Falls Board of Zoning Appeals on April 28 approved a procedural variance to the Village zoning code allowing demolition of the structure at 108 East Summit Street before a replacement design has been submitted.
The zoning inspector presented the application from C.F.H. Limited, represented by Scott Goldberg, who said the building — originally constructed in 1959 as the Windsor Hospital nursing dormitory and later used for student housing — "had outlived its useful life and was functionally obsolete." Goldberg said the owner intends to divide the 22,000-square-foot parcel into two lots of about 11,000 square feet each, both conforming to the R-1-60 district lot-size and width requirements.
Neighbor testimony largely supported the application while raising site-specific concerns. James Fisher of 195 North Street asked about demolition debris, hillside stabilization and grading; Chris Arth of Solon, speaking on behalf of a relative at the adjoining property, and Mark Pollock of 200 Falls Walkway asked about contractor oversight and liability for runoff or damage to the adjacent brick street. The zoning inspector and Board members said demolition permits will require a stormwater runoff management plan, engineered restoration grading, contractor registration, bonds and insurance, and that the Village engineer must approve hillside stabilization measures before demolition can proceed.
Board member Andrew Rockey moved to grant the variance to Section 1115.05, finding that the Architectural Board of Review had preliminarily determined the structure was non-historic and that allowing demolition before a replacement design would permit a clean division into two conforming parcels. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously by members Rachel Freshman-Johnson, Jim Holdren, Elizabeth Hijar and Andrew Rockey. Ms. Freshman-Johnson noted a 15-day period during which three Council members may seek review of the decision; absent an appeal, the variance will be deemed granted.
The Board emphasized that the variance is procedural: future construction remains subject to final ABR approval, engineering review, an approved stormwater management plan, and county and Village approval of the lot split.
