|
De:4°emtEr° 1, 1964 - Page 4
<br />Mr. Castea° reportecl he ha? ?alked to Mr, 5au1 Biskind today and arrangements are
<br />heing made ?? turn over a warranry rieed to, the School Board £or 11,26 acres for
<br />Park Ridge Subdivisicn, the land to lae u?ed flor school an¢i recreation purposes,
<br />plus a check f?? $11a650 tcpurchase additiona1 land for school purposes, Part
<br />of the money is a1sc to g? for a road to give egress from the propert}r,
<br />Law Director Kitchen advi.sed r'hat the deed shculd bc to the Gity of North
<br />Olmsted rather than to the Scaa??ol Bcardo
<br />Engineer Labas submitte3 nis q),:axrerly re,p(ort and advised that his report on
<br />the Southern Avenue arsa wi11 be .°omp1etsd later in the week and copa.es furnished
<br />the Publ ic Dp-velopment F',;mmittee,
<br />At the req??st of rMl,P;:zz ft?eii y of Hennie Homes was present at
<br />Couneil nteetbng t? di?cluss thri? matter of a home buiIt on S'ablot 13 in Woodview
<br />Subdivisbon #3, on ires Lane, at the rear of property owned by Mr, Harley Rosser
<br />who previously agpeared befor? ?ouncil, Ma°, P?zzltie1?o was accompanied by
<br />his General Sugerint--n3ent s i?-,En KiTb-ane, and his attorneyo
<br />Mr. Mangani expYained t"I?at Mr, R:;sser had b.Ought the matter of the baek yard
<br />se,tback in the above. sublct tc Cc?un*Y.I' s attention, and that Councilmen Mangani
<br />and Limpert had bool?ed at the grc,perty a?nder discussion, Mr, Mangani then
<br />explained that Council as a wlanjle wi??ed ?o kncw why and how some happenings
<br />had come abou-t in the mat ter >
<br />Mr, Mangani tfien read from informaticxn on nand wrhich indicated that on April 7th
<br />Hennie Homes appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals requesting a backyard
<br />variance, and were tu:ned down, that on May 19th Hennae Homes appeared before
<br />Gouncil with a request, and Coincll advs,sed the Boax°d of Zoning Appeals that
<br />they recommended variances be grantc-d for those houses where required9 that on
<br />June 9th they appeared again v,efc)re the Bcaarai cf Zcning Apgeals and caere granted
<br />variances on Sasblots 1 thru 6, 12; and 15 s.hr9j 21, The buil.ders then built cn
<br />Stablot 13, wt?ere a var, anc_-e nad not. been granted, in a position whfch crmwds
<br />both the new house, and ??? ?cuse of ;Mra Rcssez, whose 1ot ada6ins the rear of
<br />Sublot 13, The Building Depactment zrd??ed as?op on the construction, and accord-
<br />ing to oua° information, constructiom proceedeslo C,-_?,dncil wishes ta inquire
<br />why the building wasn' t stopped taY??n the st.op order, was issued, and also why a
<br />house was buil? near the dit(_.?? ?h,?_ ?,_ntireeasement is wzthin Sublot 13,
<br />but no where does the d:t::-;h p th??rr_,:,p?r=ty shou, on "t,'he plans,
<br />The builder adv??ed t,'-aat when *?hL?, stop order was -.".ssued, he did te11his people
<br />to stopp but there wai an in?- 'der?t, w?eri- a bricYclayer who aiid not know of the
<br />stop mrder did some work, and was stop????, 'In answer tc) Mr, Mangani°s question
<br />' as to whether the first stop or??? wa? ??Qued befcsre the foundation had gone
<br />too far, Mr, Kilbane rrGglied tiiat. the sitop ?rder c,ras issued while the house was
<br />being roofed9 the st,eathing was abc,it finished, and witih permission frmm Mr, GundY,
<br />they finished gutting the sheat.hing csn the fjor and blacie paper, to protect the
<br />materials,
<br />In answer to a questi,Dn f'raai Mr, Leona:d as to wIhether they taex°e aware that in all
<br />' this time they did not have a building permit, the builder answered that they
<br />AP4N ; were of the mpinion that they had a building permito They sent in acheck and
<br />` aPPlication for a pertnit on Aug?st 25th and a??lilmed trat the permi!t was being
<br />ii lssued.
<br />? The builder explained that *hey did not fee1 that variance was needed, since this
<br />lot was triangular in shape and the amcunt cf square feet was actually greater
|