|
;�.ayor of Shoreviev� and
<br />Shorevie�v Village Trustees
<br />August 15, 1966
<br />Page 3.
<br />�A� to �he effect of the second fact, if bir. Roberts had a
<br />Spec�al Use Permit authorizing his u�e of all or part of the l,0 foot
<br />strip, t3�.�en our camnlaints about �he crushed rock landscap�ng and/or
<br />the use of the strip Tnave no basis.
<br />Inasmuch as D11r. Roberts ��as represented by Counsel at your
<br />Public ��fearing on tihis matter, I assumed that subsequ�ent to �y �,eparture,
<br />lbi�c. �aubney �vould point ou� Mr. Rober�s t position w�.th re9pect to thes�
<br />facts to the Trustees, xov�ever, I understarid that Mr. Daubney was ealled
<br />a��ray a.�..most i�.rr., iate�r subsequent to rqy remarks and cansequently wgs
<br />unable to re�pond to �n�n, Bec�:use of his not having had aia opportunity
<br />to respond to �y remarks, and since Mr. Roberts had called to �y attention
<br />diff�reni facts from those :vhich I had previously assumed and wr�ic� wer�
<br />implicit in n�y rer�arks to the Trustees, I feel that it is incumbent upon
<br />m� to clarify u�y remarks based upon mV findings subsequent to �y l�arning
<br />from Mr. Roberts that his actions vrere conditioned upon L„he afor�:anen-
<br />tioned t�vo facts.
<br />Gn Friday morning, Atigust 12, 1966, I contacted Mr, Richard
<br />1�. Turn].und, Iv��nager, Village of Raseville, to ixiquire o£ him concerning
<br />the �t��o i"acts rela�ed to m,e by Mx� Roberts. Mr. Turnlund advised me
<br />that h�ir . Roberts correctly stat�d the firs-� fact, i. e., that ths Village
<br />Orficials took the position that IvLr. Rober�s had camplied with the Gcreenfng
<br />, provisions oi" the Code and �dditional planti.ng rrould not b� officially
<br />required of him. As ta the second fact, Mr. Turnlund advised ne that
<br />Mr. �oberts �as in e�^ror si.nce he did not have a�pecial Use Permit author-
<br />izing the use of any of �he 40 foo� strip. Mr. Turnlund confirmed rttiy
<br />previoas urderstanding that Mr. Roberts bac? obtained only a front set-
<br />back variance perr�i.�ting nim to b�:ild �loser to the railroad tracks running
<br />parall�l to Gounty Rcad »C'i. .
<br />Based u�o�n �he aforementioned new faci�s, I vmuld like to elarif�r
<br />_ lrtiy remarks concerning �che re�uctance shotim ny N1r, Roberts from the
<br />residen�cs t poin� of vievr relative to installation of screening �nd the
<br />use oz" the �0 foot strip o
<br />In accordance �rith the official Roseville Village �osi�ian, the
<br />�� .. agreer.�en� by ?�Ir. R:�be�s to �1an�, tree� was a gratuitaus accommodation ta
<br />the residents �f �,i1e ar�a . Ou-r complaints of his failure to completely
<br />'� �comply t7itn 4he �erns oi our agreenent of April 18, 1966 (see enclosed
<br />�.e 4ter� , tiierefore, are legally 4rithout merit since we have no au�hority
<br />�:
<br />�t.o require his compliance .
<br />��-°
<br />k� Ylil�h z�sp�ct to +�,he use of the 40 foot strip, Pfir. Roberts
<br />�;' � a�parently �s of ��;iie op�.n�.on ti�at he had ,a Special Use Permit au-p�horiza.ng
<br />��-
<br />�� - '
<br />,.:
<br />=�; _
<br />�' ;
<br />�.�
<br />r4 �
<br />� ;�: ,
<br />`, ; ,
<br />�,; ,� �
<br />���` x �
<br />.
<br />�;� ��� t _
<br />4
<br />r �o y. � � �''�4 . . � . . '
<br />ft,�r/,Yi 5j l 7
<br />� i f I+ 41 fj ��> r> �.. , . . . . �..
<br />'� i
<br />; ,�^ . t L � . � - . :
<br />_ , ii,...<f3i.i.� .� ., l;, .. . , ... . . , . . � _._— _—
<br />1
<br />
|