04/21/1959 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APRIL 21, 1959 - - - PAGE 2 drawings. The Engineer requested that a design sheet be furnished and Mr. Kuhn stated that could definitely be made available. In reply to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Kuhn advised that it would not be possible to list all the changes already made, inasmuch as when the changes were made on Zone 1 and 2, the drawings were changed and resubmitted for approval. A list of the changes on Zone 3 is to be forwarded and upon receipt a meeting is to be held by the Streets Committee and the Service Director. Mr. Gaskell of Hayden, Miller Co. stated that they would like to proceed as soon as possible, in order to have a full understanding of the program. A meeting is to be held at the home offices of Floyd Browne on either Monday or Tuesday of the week of April 27th, at which time Mr. Gaskell and Mr. Barnes will be in attendance. In connection with the in the form of a note, approaching the final form of an assessment. planning assessment, Mr. which is approaching its stage of the planning, it Kuhn stated that this is still first year; and as they are should probably be in some The Clerk presented a petition concerning a surface water problem covering the area approximately 500' north of Mastick Road and approximately 500' east of Columbia Road and extending from this point towards Brookpark Road. The petition requests that Council take the following action: 1. Determine if 4" main li~ie was affected by Brookpark new road construction or other reason and re-open for drainage. 2. If unable to determine above immediately, request a drainage ditch be provided to remove present surface water before it becomes a serious health hazard. The Engineer and the Service Director reported as to the survey they had made in the area, the review made of construction plans and the trenching that had already been done. It was pointed out that it might be necessary to take up the entire length of the - possibly 1,000 feet - in order to determine whether a the is broken. The Solicitor was requested to advise as to liabiliity and he stated that it would be a moral obligation of the City to give some consideration to the petitioners, if merely for the purpose of alleviating the situation. He ad- vised that the City would be within its rights in using a snake in order to determine where the trouble lies; but when they find the break, it would be necessary to instruct the property owner to make a replacement. The Clerk read a letter from the North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce, wherein they convey their findings relative to the sanitary sewer system in North Olmsted. The Mayor stated that if District No. 2, referred to in the letter from the Chamber of Commerce, is the same as Zone No. 2, a determination was made by the Sewer Committee in December. The Soli~tor advised that he had received the following: 1. Noti prepared by Mr. Bev , representing He 'e Homes, wherein they a cal the action of th Building Commissio er and the sub- sequent ling of the Building oard Code of Appea s in refusing permits on elyn Drive. 2. Alternative 't of Mandamus - th State of Ohio, on a relation of Suburbanite es, Inc. and Dori T~lorvilius, Truste vs. the City of North Olms and the North 0 sted City Council The Soli 'tor stated that the ci would probably se the first lit' ation but possibly the second. He state that the ban on h using regarding ennie Homes was in direct opposition to an inion given on rious occasions to Council. Ina uch as he has made known is feelings on is matter, he ug- gested that spe 'al counsel be hired to end the case. there is not 'ng in our code which tates that homes must be f brick constru tion, he ad.vis d that the only altern tive would be to instruc the Building Co issioner to ti lift the ban and issue the permits. He stated t the was not tified of thy, meetings of the Buildin Board Code of Appeals and a read a copy of the notice issued by said Board rela 've to this particular cas The Solici r took ex- ception to the reference in the notice to his letter o March 25, 19 and stat that a complete revie~d of tha particular letter would h ve revealed t at he specifically stated that rejec 'on of permits had been ba don the fai a of the developer to complete improv nts. - 2 -