Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,~ <br /> <br />J <br /> <br /> <br />tervi[{e <br />'Esta6[isfiet{ 1857 <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT <br />CENTERVILLE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />Date: December 23, 2003 <br /> <br />To: Honorable Mayor and City ConneD Memben <br />Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes, City Adminntrator <br /> <br />From: <br /> <br />Ellen Paulseth, Finance Director ~ <br /> <br />Re: Ordinance requirements regarding sod <br /> <br />*....***************.*******************--**.*****._*.******......**.... <br /> <br />An issue has arisen regarding the City sod requirement on 1753 Dupre Road. <br /> <br />Prior to construction, a sod escrow of$I,500 was collected by the City from the builder <br />(Homes by James) of the home on 1753 Dupre. During a routine inspection of the <br />project, the City Building Inspector found that the builder had chosen to hydro-seed the <br />twf rather than install sod. The City Inspector then informed the job superintendent that <br />it was a violation of city ordinance to use hydro-seeding as a method of establishing twf <br />and that the ordinance required the installation of sod in the front and side yards. <br /> <br />The City Clerk wrote a letter to Mr. Clairmont of Homes by James advising him of the <br />violation and included a copy of the ordinance, but it was retmned to the City due to an <br />insufficient address. The City Clerk later spoke with Mr. Clairmont regarding the issue <br />and advised him of the same. Mr. Clairmont's response was that the owner had requested <br />the hydro-seeding and he was only complying with the owner's wishes. <br /> <br />The building inspector did state that the hydro-seeding came in very nicely and appeared <br />to be satisfactory. <br /> <br />Does the City ConneD wish to keep all or a portion of the sod escrow, in tight of the <br />violation, or should it be returned since the lawn is in satisfactory condition? <br />