Planning Board Approves Controversial Cemetery Variance Request

Attachments

Conceptual plans of proposed development on the vacant lot at the corner of Bald Eagle Drive and West Elkham Circle. As proposed, the restaurant drive-through backs up to the Marco Island Cemetery with an entrance/exit on Elkham, just down from Veterans Park.

A Site Development Plan for the property located on the vacant lot at the corner of Bald Eagle Drive and West Elkcam Circle, immediately adjacent to the Marco Island Cemetery,  came before the Planning Board at their June 7th meeting.

The Oliverio Investment and Consulting Group development plan was accompanied by a variance request regarding a reduction in the setback from 15 feet to three feet. That request has become a major sticking point with many who attended the Planning Board hearing.

There was minimal support for the proposal during public input. Speaker after speaker came forth to voice opposition to the variance petition, which appears to be key to the proposal.

Numerous members of the Jewish Congregation came forward in opposition to the proposal. “Cemeteries are special places, and as such they should be accorded respect and be protected,” said Carol Roberts. “How would you feel if a member of your family were being buried while horns were being blown at a drive-thru window only a few feet away and you couldn’t hear those special words being spoken? We only learned about this variance being proposed a few days ago, and we own plots which are close to this area most endangered within the cemetery and we oppose approval of the variance,” Roberts said.

 “Three feet is not just an encroachment; it is coming into our sanctity,”  said Keith Alter, Senior Vice President of the Jewish Community Center, speaking on behalf of the Congregation.

Indications pointed to the board being favorable to the proposal for the center but not the variance request that would have negatively impacted the Jewish Memorial Garden. The Developer’s representatives sensed the board's pushback and began a series of potential changes to their design of the traffic flow from removing an overflow lane to changing the sound/retaining wall. As the conversations continued, it became apparent the board began to become more and more confused. The “designing on the fly” worried Planning Board Attorney David N. Tolces and its unintentional consequences. He interceded, cautioning the Board to vote on the actual issues brought before them.

The Board eventually voted on those two issues: (1). The site development plan as proposed and (2). The request for a variance reducing the side setback from 15 ft. to 3 ft.

The vote on the Site Development Proposal would carry 5-1 with Chair Jason Bailey opposing. The vote on the Variance passed 4-2, with members Finkle, Hogan, Vergo and Bailey voting to approve and Fahringer and Rivera opposed. Bailey admitted he was prepared to vote no on the variance, which would have killed the development, but instead voted in favor, hoping the developer and opposing parties could come together prior to the June 17th meeting of City Council.

The Planning Board heard another request, this one to adopt an Amendment to Chapter 30, Section 30-224 of the City’s Land Development Code (LDC). The amendment would add a new sub-section III to allow for mixed-use in “Overlay District two-a,” subject to conditional use approval. All other areas that are within this category of C3 Zoning presently allow for this except 11 lots located along North Coller that were not included in the original ordinance.

City staff and the property owners were made aware of the oversight during discussions on workforce housing above businesses located within the C3 Overlay Districts. This new right would provide an owner “to a conditional use” to build market-rate housing with no income restriction within the affected overlay district and not be limited to workforce housing. This would still be required to comply with the city’s process for public hearings before the Planning Board and Council with required notifications to adjacent property owners.

When asked to comment on the issue Joeseph Oliverio, owner of Joey’s Pizza and many of the other affected properties would simply say he was seeking a return of the “property rights” he had been denied by the oversight when the properties in this area had been overlooked and not originally included in the ordinance.

The 5-1 vote was in favor of restoring these properties into the amended Ordinance, with Planning Board member Rivera opposing.

Board member Hayden Dublois was absent from the meeting.