The Observation Deck

**UPDATE**

Appeal has indeed been submitted by Mary Breiner and eight others ("the undersigned").


The appeal is based upon five points:

1. Applicants were not provided the option to have the vote deferred until which time the new Planning Commission member (Wililam Gaydos) could get up to speed on the issue;
2. Abstention by Mr. Gaydos was the result of an unnecessary delay in the process caused by the City Administration;
3. Unnecessary confusion caused by Assistant Law Director regarding the designation applying to "buildings' v. "sites";
4.) Unnecessary confusion caused by Planning Commission Secretary regarding the matter of "affirmative maintenance" as it relates to hardship; and
5.) Inconsistent application of the ordinance with regards to "commercial" property and "residential" property


Also just received at City Hall was this letter

from attorney J. Peter Szeman (on behalf of property owners Michael and Stacey Semaan) which responds to appeal application.




Please note: when an appeal like this is submitted, the Planning Committee does not automatically have to rehear the case. Per Law Director Butler, the process is up to two-fold: Step 1.) request by the applicant to have the initial decision reheard or not; and Step 2.) the rehearing (if aforementioned request is granted).

Agenda for next scheduled Planning Commission meeting has not yet been issued, but This Observer is expecting the appeal to be on March 7 Planning Committee docket.



Lakewood resident Mary Breiner addresses Planning Commission at its January 3 meeting

Matthew John Markling wrote:
Who lives just east of the Heideloff House?

Maybe these eastern neighbors simply don't want cluster homes in their back yard?

The latest submitted plans are for only one house that straddles the property line of both parcels in question. They are not proposing cluster homes, just one large new residence.

This property was on the market for a very long time, in a decrepit state from all reports, yet none of the complaining neighbors stepped up and bought it. It seems to me if you want to enjoy the benefits of someone else's property, you should buy it.

My concern is that there are constitutional limits on the taking of property (and I think denying the owner's right to use his property in a lawful manner is a taking of property). And I don't think it proper that the city can effectively abrogate the decision on this to a group of mean spirited neighbors. Unfortunately, the city has apparently drawn up an ordinance that effectively allows a third party to impair the owner's use of his property.

That ordinance should be corrected to allow only the owner of the property to seek such status. I think the city does not have sufficient reason to impair property just for historical preservation. If the city wants to preserve historical property, it should buy the property.

As it is going, the owner of the property is suffering significant economic harm, and I would hope the courts would remedy that situation.

Will Brown wrote:My concern is that there are constitutional limits on the taking of property (and I think denying the owner's right to use his property in a lawful manner is a taking of property). And I don't think it proper that the city can effectively abrogate the decision on this to a group of mean spirited neighbors. Unfortunately, the city has apparently drawn up an ordinance that effectively allows a third party to impair the owner's use of his property.

That ordinance should be corrected to allow only the owner of the property to seek such status. I think the city does not have sufficient reason to impair property just for historical preservation. If the city wants to preserve historical property, it should buy the property.

Will


It is easier to get an area designated "historic" than a house. Or probably more to the
point, just as easy to do an entire neighborhood as a house. I believe these are state
laws not local.

I believe Birdtown or to be Historically accurate "Birdville" is designate historical, so that
you can only do certain things to a home as designated by sate laws.

Perhaps had the neighbors filed for the entire neighborhood to be historic, it would have
had more success, but honestly many of the homes around the area are some of the
newer homes in Lakewood. There is a small apartment directly south of it from the 60s,
and I believe Roy and other streets in the area are from the 50s and 60s from when they
subdivided other large properties in the area.

.

At its March 7 meeting, The Planning Commission has rejected (by a 7-0 vote) a request to hear an appeal to its February 7 decision to not designate the Heideloff House an historic property.

Next step for those making the appeal - if they chose to do so - would be an appeal to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court under Rev. Code Chapter 2506.

Isn't this the house? I noticed today that the property in question has been listed for sale. You can find it here:

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/13474-Edgewater-Dr_Lakewood_OH_44107_M45547-34606?row=1

Interestingly, although the owners claimed it was a real mess, the house is listed for TWICE what they paid for it less than 2 years ago. Did they recently sink hundreds of thousands into restoration?

EDIT - according to the description, it needs lots of TLC but its being marketed like this: "sub divide the property to your hearts content."