08/26/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the house will impair their property values, they must.file a separate appeal with documentation, and he would bring it back to this board. Assistant City Engineer McDermott has done a preliminary review of the plan and has submitted a memo stating that if the property is developed as proposed it will retain water on the property as requiredo The Engineering Department has been made aware of the piles of dirt that were mentioned in the letter and they may take action on that. Mre Walters, the former owner of the lot, stated that there were horses on this property at one time, and the ground was matted down at least 4 inches below the grade. This property was always lower so when the Scotts filled in their property some swamps were created and that brought in mosquitoes. Mr. Sitrnnons, Jr. maintained that no flooding complaints had been made to the city until this past Monday, August 23, 1993 after the Scotts received their notice of the meeting. He claimed that the Scotts covered in their drainage ditch across the front of their property without piping it in or getting permission from the city. He had Mr. Novak, of the Service Department, inspect the drainage and he found no problems with it. Mr. Simmons advised that constructing the house wx.ll not cause more water since a11 work will be done according to the topo anci water will be contained on the lot and then pumped out to the ditch in front. Regarding the non-conforming lot, there was a house on the property when the ordinance was written. Mr. Plez stated that almost all of the smaller shacks in the neighborhood have been removed, and he does not see how a large house can be built to replace a one room cottage. He compared it to putting a high rise in the middle of the neighborhood. He maintained that this will ruin the property value of his prope-rty. It was noted that NIr. Walters owns the vacant lat to the ea.st of this lot. Mrs. Mancuso stated they had problems getting a loan when they bought a house on Whitehaven, since it was the only new house in the neighborhood. She ma,intained that the houses that Mr. Simmons has built havP brought up property values. Mr. Plez would like the two lots combined and a house built on them which would conform to the neighborhood, he does not believe that over development will help the area and even though there has beEn a lot of development in the neighborhood the lift pump statian has not been upgraded causing problems. Mr. Muzie was concerned that if a new home is lntilt, it will increase his taxes. Mr. Walters maintained that North Olmsted did not want to join two lots when he built a home previously. It was clarif'ied that Mr. Simmons only owned one lot so he could not join them. Mr. Burk verified that these plans have been checked by Engineering and they do conform. Mrs. Mancuso presented a note from Mrs. Zavesky, who could not be present. Mre Burk read the note which stated, "To Whom It May Concern: I do not oppose Simmons Construction Co. building houses on Broxbourne with the variance for 45' lots. Ms. Kim Zavesky.'° r1r. Conway advised Mr. Burk that the issue tonight is dealing with drainage on the lot, if there is a problem in the right of way, it must be addressed by Engineering. If the neighbors have a concexn with impairment to their property values, there is an avenue for which they can appeal to this board, but they must have some documentation, it cannot 1e- that they think it will hurt their property values, they must substantiate the:ir concerns. He, as a Building Official, would not reject this permit tmder the property impairment section since he could not see how it could reduce the value of a property when they are building a more expensive house. Mr. Sinunons, Senior, did not understand how the Scotts property could flood, considering the grade of their lot. Mr. Plez again stated that squeezing in a house on this 1ot would deva]_ue his property. J. Kazak moved to accept the proposal to have a house built on sublot 146 as submitted by the topographical survey, seconded by D. Spoerke, and Unanimously approved. V. NEW BUSINESS : No items. r,? A ? ! 2