1992 035 Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHiBIT ? Al45TATE LEGAL SUPPCV C,O. DRAFT For Discusstan Purposes Oniy p u T VI19/ L GL at;kl THIS AGREEMENT, is made this day of , 1992, at Cleveland, Ohio, by and among PAT LaCONTE, PAT LaCONTE as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEAN V. LaCONTE, deceased, RICHARD W. LaCONTE and ROSEMARY LaCONTE (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), the VILLAGE OF MAYFIELD, OHIO (hereinafter referred to as the "Village"), and SANTO BASILE, DAVID PETSCHAUER, LAWRENCE FLYNN, GEORGE GOLEY, RICHARD ETZLER and FRED N. CARMEN (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Individual Defen- dants" ) . RECITALS 1. Plaintiffs, except Richard W. LaConte are the owners of certain real property located within the Village, commonly known by the street address of 320 and 370 S.O.M. Center Road, and bounded on the west by Interstate 271, and on the east by S.O.M. Center Road consisting of approximately 76 acres, currently subject to the zoning ordinances of the Village, as more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). 2. Plaintiffs have filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, captioned Patrick LaConte, et al. v. Santo Basile, et al., Case No. C87-2289 (hereinafter referred to as the "Federal Litigation"), seeking damages from the Village and the Individual Defendants alleging, in part, that attempts by the Plaintiffs to sell the Property were illegally frustrated by actions taken by the Village and the Individual Defendants with respect to the permitted use of the Property by the Village. 3. The Council of the Village has initiated condemnation proceedings regarding the Property, including the passage of Ordinance 91-35 for the purpose of appropriating the Property, which Ordinance Plaintiffs desire to have repealed and not reenacted. 4. In lieu of appropriating the property and as a condition precedent to the Village's repeal of Ordinance 91-35, the Village is willing to receive an option to purchase the Property, and Plaintiffs have agreed to grant the Village an option to purchase the Property. 5. Plaintiffs currently use the Property primarily as a public commercial golf course and driving range, together with accessory uses, and desire to be able to continue such use of the Property as a public commercial golf course in the future. . 6. The Property is currently subject to so-called "layer- cake" zoning (a combination of single family residential, produc- tion-distribution and office laboratory districts).