My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/17/1999 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
1999
>
05/17/1999 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 9:12:54 AM
Creation date
7/19/2018 10:16:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
5/17/1999
Year
1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Regular Council Meeting <br />5-17-99 <br />Page 4 <br />pleasing to one may not be aesthetically pleasing to another. Our codes are designed to try to get <br />some common ground. But, when you are talking about a specific deed restriction, frankly, you <br />are getting into something that is much more personal, more private. His reluctance is that he is <br />afraid we are encouraging more friction than not. It seems a shame it would have to come to <br />this. <br />Mr. Schultz said -if they proceed with a second story, then anyone who desires to have a, second <br />story--they will because a precedent has been established. <br />Dr. Parker said it is not the Village setting the precedent--it would be the homeowner's <br />association because they would be the ones that have not fought or resisted change. He does not <br />know what the Law Director feels but he feels we might be placing ourselves in a more serious <br />situation and might open ourselves up to a lawsuit. <br />Mr. Diemert said the property owner would have recourse against us. We can only enforce our <br />code. <br />Dr. Parker said he thinks it is the homeowner's association that would have to either allow this to <br />go on and then the precedent would be set and we will have to revisit it and they will maintain <br />the character. <br />Mr. Schultz said the record is in the court. It should be part of the Village's zoning. <br />Mayor Rinker said he thinks it would be best for them to obtain legal counsel. It is up to a court <br />to enforce deed restrictions; it is up to individuals who seek enforcement to attain that; it is not <br />up to the Village to do that. <br />Mr. Dlemert said deed restrictions are meant to benefit someone. Only those who would benefit <br />from a deed restriction would have a right to enforce them. This deed restriction does not benefit <br />the Village as a whole. It benefits the individual community. <br />Mr. Schultz read from the deed restriction. He thought the Metro Park Association would be the <br />Village. <br />Mr. Diemert asked who the Metro Park Association would be other than the homeowners--it <br />would not be the Village. <br />Mayor Rinker said we are not trying to stand in the way. A question in his mind is how far <br />neighbors want to get into this with other neighbors. Tliey have every right to follow up on legal <br />issues. To ask the Village to enforce that is not what is contemplated under the law. <br />Mr. Diemert said if we were to adopt a zoning law that said only in the Metro Park subdivision <br />you could only have one-story residences of a ranch style, that ordinance would be held <br />unconstitutional.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.