Zoning board gives approval to tourist rentals

A Curran Street couple received the OK to keep renting out their two homes to tourists.
Andy Ouriel
Jan 21, 2012

A Curran Street couple received the OK to keep renting out their two homes to tourists.

The five members from Sandusky's zoning appeals board unanimously approved a request from Ann and John Arnold, allowing them to continue renting their properties as vacation homes.

Previously, city officials told the Arnolds -- along with five residents living on or near Cedar Point Road -- they violated Sandusky's zoning code by letting tourists into their homes for a fee.

Board members rejected an appeal from all those involved in December to reverse the decision.

Recently, however, the Arnolds asked and received a special permit to keep renting out their Curran Street home.

"We gave them a conditional use permit," board member John Feick said. "It doesn't change the zoning law, and (the Arnolds) can use the permit for rentals."

Feick's decision came from the overwhelming support nearly 20 neighbors and community residents displayed during a Thursday hearing in City Hall.

Many spoke about why the Arnolds should be allowed to rent out their homes.

For one, the couple rejuvenated a street once infested with criminals and drugs, Cove Street resident Don Mather said.

"We had a deteriorated neighborhood," Mather said. "But we got people out of town investing in our homes, and now it's just a wonderful place to live."

Another reason includes the benefits city officials reap from the Arnolds' initial investment, city resident Bob Warner said.

"I have watched hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction go down there," Warner said.

Better homes also elevate property values. Nicer-looking homes also encourage people to come to Sandusky.

"They continue to do good things for the street and the city," Warner said.

The Arnolds began renting homes on the street 24 years ago.

John's motivation for sprucing up the street came from growing up in the neighborhood and wanting to stay there.

John's just happy this months-long saga has concluded.

"People want to live and stay down here because it's a great neighborhood," John said.

Check back later for video.

 

Comments

shoreline dude

 

To BEHAPPY, You should change your name to UNHAPPY!! Everything you say is so negitive, It's a good thing you have Julie R. to agree with you because everyone who knows John and Ann know how hard they both  work and the lhe life  they built for themselves and the many friend's they both have. I have known John his whole life and also grew up in that  neighborhood and see how it has changed for the better.Your house is worth more because of all the people that stayed at John and Ann's came back and either bought and remodeled, or tore down and rebuilt. This is pretty much because they are good people and FUN to be around. See you @ the party friend's  P.S. Hi Randy

BEHAPPY

Ahh, a party "friend".  If you prefer to call the truth negativity that is your right.   

Julie R.

@ Peachestoo: First off, I have no bone to pick in this fight. I don't even know your brother or anybody else.

So if it's true that there were really 80 cats living in a house, I'm surprised there was never anything in the paper about it. Was there? Also, how did THE CITY remove an elderly woman from her home? I didn't know THE CITY had that kind of authority. Why also was the house sold at a sheriff sale? To do that the property would either have to be in foreclosure or back taxes were owed.

(Oh wait, sorry I forgot. In corrupt Erie County the courts can also force property with serious defects in the title caused by fraud to be sold at invalid scam sheriff sales through invalid scam partition actions and incorrect fraud preliminary judicial reports)

Woody Hayes

Here we go again, a man wants to rent his house and cleans up the neigborhood, and here comes the tin foil hat wacko spouting out about the court system and " Oh, they wronged me ". You still are a loser in the court system and still DISINHEARTED.

Colour_Scientist

Haters gonna hate. Behappy, you're apparently the only person that has knowledge of this animal cruelty. I've never heard a single person speak bad about John or Ann. You clearly don't know them or you would be very aware of the kind of people they are. Some of the most generous and thoughtfull people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. In short, get a life and get bent.

BEHAPPY

You could not be more wrong.   I am not the only person who knows of their animal cruelty.   Far from the only one.   There have been several others to say the same here on the blogs at different times, look back at other stories.  There was another here in this story but they got deleted.  YOU, clearly do not know them or you would know of this.   But then again I'm sure he doesn't go "blasting off" that he does such a thing.   I have so much more I could say but I am refraining here.   Ask him about himself and his next door neighbor, to me, those are not what I call nice people, maybe phony.   I'm sure he will deny it through his teeth. Good day.

super fan

now my boys can goes in and welcomes the folks to the hood and make kissy faces to they girls and seends them home wit special souveneers and they be taken meds and yo

Julie R.

@peachestoo:  You said that the city of Sandusky removed an elderly woman who had a lot of cats from her house on Curran Street and the house was eventually sold at a sheriff sale. You said that Mr. Arnold and a neighbor then bought the house at the sheriff sale and then gutted the entire house........

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the auditor's website shows that Mr. Arnold and his wife own 5 properties on Curran Street ----- 4 single-family residences (meaning houses) and one Land Only ----- and NONE of them were obtained through a sheriff sale. The auditor's website instead shows that in 1987 Mr. Arnold obtained 3 properties --- land only ---- on Curran Street,  the SELLER was UNKNOWN and Mr. Arnold paid $0.00 for the 3 properties.

The 4th property on Curran Street obtained by Mr. Arnold and his wife was in 1997 and that was not obtained at a sheriff sale, either. The SELLER was a couple by the name of McCarty. 

The 5th property Mr. Arnold obtained on Curran Street was in 1999 and that wasn't obtained at a sheriff sale, either.  He also sure did get a steal on THAT one!  The Sales Data shows that a Frank Parzynski (wasn't he a doctor?) bought a house on Curran Street in in 1991 for only $43,000.00 but it doesn't tell who the seller was. It then shows that Parzynski as the SELLER then sold the property four years later (1995) to a Kathleen Parzynski, et.al. for $154,000.00. It also states that the SALE was INVALID. It then shows that in 1999 Mr. Arnold and his wife bought the house from a Kathleen Parzynski,et.al for only $62,000.00. (so if the SALE from the previous owner was INVALID and the issue wasn't resolved, does that mean Mr. Arnold bought property with some real SERIOUS DEFECTS IN THE TITLE?)

So what YEAR did the sheriff sale of the elderly woman's HOUSE take place? Just curious.   

 

Blacktigress

 its not about hate, its about JUSTICE

DID OR DID HE NOT TAKE OUT BUILDING PERMITS?

WAS THE WORK DONE BY LICENSED CONTRACTORS?

DID OR DID HE NOT PAY THE PROPER RENTAL / BED TAXES? 

The same questions go towards his neighbors, did they do things legally or not? 

 

HOW ABOUT IT S.Register? Why not ask city hall to provide the records on Arnolds  building permits and taxes. 

If he didn't, then what does he have on those in city hall or who does he know?  

sanduskysteve

It would seem that there are some unanswered questions surrounding this situation.  Wouldn't the building permits and such be public records at the city hall?

Julie did a good job - it does appear that there is more to that elderly lady's cat house than meets the eye as well.

I know nothing of this John person, but when the questions are asked and there are no answers - it does raise eyebrows - - - - -

Julie R.

@ peachestoo:  If the house of the elderly woman on Curran Street (who you said was forced out of her home by the city of Sandusky) was sold at a sheriff sale to Mr. Arnold and a neighbor, who did the 3 properties belong to on Curran Street ---- LAND ONLY --- that Mr. Arnold and his wife acquired in 1987 for $0.00 dollars from a SELLER listed as UNKNOWN?

http://erie.iviewauditor.com/Results.aspx?SearchType=Owner&Criteria1=JOHN&Criteria2=ARNOLD

I'm also curious about the property that Mr. Arnold obtained in 1999.  The SALE prior to it was INVALID yet when Mr. Arnold bought it ---- obviously to use as RENTAL PROPERTY ---- the Sale is stated to be VALID. Was that bought through a Sheriff Sale? It doesn't say it was but I know how MISLEADING online records in Erie County can be.  

Julie R.

@ peachestoo: If the elderly woman with all the cats was forced out of her home, stands to reason she sure never gave her consent for her property to be sold. So if her house wasn't in foreclosure and no back taxes were owing, how did Erie County go about selling her property at a sheriff sale?  So what was the YEAR of the sheriff sale, anyway, and how much did her property sell for? I believe that would be a matter of public record. Also, would you happen to know what the elderly woman's name was?   

Julie R.

There certainly does seem to be a lot of people  --- not only Mr. Arnold but also realtors ---- that are buying up properties in Erie County involved in invalid transfers at a substantial discount and using them as RENTAL PROPERTIES. Here's yet another one: (Click on the Sales Data) 

http://erie.iviewauditor.com/Data.aspx?ParcelID=42-01072.000 

 

 

sanduskysteve

Seems when the right questions are asked concerning this John person - everyone clams up and noone has the answers - there definitely IS something strange going on here.

BEHAPPY

Exactly

Julie R.

@ BEHAPPY: Is the elderly lady still living?    

BEHAPPY

No she is not.

BEHAPPY

My understanding she was put in a nursing home.   Most of her cats were let loose and now they are no longer around. Any guesses on what happened to them?

mrmorency

My understanding is that if a person is put into the nursing home, their assets are liquidated to pay for their care. I would assume that this woman was put into a county run nursing home. At that point the county (maybe not neccesarily through Sheriff sale) would sell her assets to pay themselves. I believe that preventing this is one of the advantages to a living trust, to ensure that if an elderly/sick person is put into a nursing  home they don't lose their homes, etc. This woman most likely didn't have a living trust, was put into the nursing home (per BEHAPPY) and then her home was sold to pay for her care.

Julie R.

@ BEHAPPY: So which one of the five properties, if any, does Mr. Arnold own now that belonged to the elderly woman? According to the comment by Mr. Arnold's brother, Mr. Arnold and a neighbor bought her house at a public auction, but not so according to the auditor's records. According to those records, none of Mr. Arnold's properties were obtained at a sheriff sale. But once again, that doesn't necessarily mean anything because ~ take it from one in the know ~ the auditor's records are very misleading. The records also omit a lot of information, especially under DEED TYPE. I don't know about Arnold's properties (a title search would have to be done) but I sure can speak for the Huron property. The UNKNOWNS listed there and the blank lines under DEED TYPE is nothing more than a cover-up for flat-out fraud and crimes against an elderly, incompetent person that corrupt Erie County allowed attorneys to pull off in 2002 that caused serious defects in the property's title.   

Julie R.

Doesn't anybody know the name of the elderly woman? So how long ago was it that was she forced out of her home on Curran Street? Was that in the 1980's or was that the property that Mr. Arnold obtained in 1997? So how long was she in a nursing home before she passed away? She must have been there for a long time. A house doesn't get sold until all other assets are gone ---  that is, going on the assumption that she wasn't married. Had she been married her house would have been EXEMPT from Medicaid eligibility.

Just out of curiosity, I would really like to do a title search on this deceased lady's property. Just out of curiosity, I think I'm going to do one on the property that Mr. Arnold bought in 1999, too ---- the one that was involved in an INVALID TRANSFER prior to Mr. Arnold buying it.

Julie R.

@ mrmorency: Your spiel about nursing homes and assets that have to be liquidated for an elderly person's care in a nursing home is true if a person is SINGLE. The rules are different for married people. When a married person has to be put into a nursing home the house is EXEMPT from Medicaid eligibility. Even if the house is owned by a married couple tenants-in-common (different than joint ownership) the house is STILL exempt from Medicaid eligibility. Also, when a married person has to be put into a nursing home, in order for the person to become eligible for Medicaid, half of the JOINT ASSETS --- once again, JOINT ASSETS ---- of the couple have to be spent down.

As for a Living Trust ---- you are correct there, too. But if you think for one minute in corrupt Erie County the Living Trust of an elderly person in the end stages of Alzheimers can't be criminally changed, think again. Better make a note of it. 

BW1's picture
BW1

Blacktigress : What about the unpaid rental tax, why didn't the register ask him about that?

That tax applies to hotels, which are a different business category.  You might just as well ask why Avis isn't paying the taxicab tax.

What about all the remodeling that was done ILLEGALLY?

Explain the basis for it being illegal.  Whose property is it anyway?  What's your issue with people improving their homes on their own terms?

What about all those who modernized their homes and was sited by the city for not having permits,

They should have fought it.

DID OR DID HE NOT TAKE OUT BUILDING PERMITS?

It's none of our business.  When you change your hairstyle, do you take out a permit?  In another thread you're complaining that Childrens' Services wields too much power and interference in peoples' lives, and now, all of a sudden you're ready to go all "show us your papers, comrade?"  Make up your mind.

WAS THE WORK DONE BY LICENSED CONTRACTORS?

Again, none of our business.  When a kid comes to school with a new haircut, should the principal open an investigation to see if he was taken to a licensed barber?

The same questions go towards his neighbors, did they do things legally or not?

Because, you know, it just wouldn't DO to have people making decisions for themselves about their own property without consulting Big Brother first, eh, tovarich?  Maybe we should just streamline things, have the city seize all housing within its borders and assign quarters to everybody.  It worked for the fuedal lords of Old England, after all, until some idiots came along a couple hundred years ago and had the audacity to suggest that the common man could actually be trusted with PROPERTY.

I notice the city couldn't just mind their own business and acknowledge property rights, but went with a conditional use permit, sort of like a medieval bishop granting indugences.  Such a dispensation is a tacit declaration that property owners have no true rights, only permissions that can be revoked as easily as they are granted.  How does it feel to be serfs?
 

sanduskysteve

BW1 - A grand show if ignorance there I might say.

You are one who believes break the law as long as no body is looking - right?

The reason they should be paying the proper taxes is because there is a law that says they are supposed to.

The reason there are building permits required to remodel homs is because there is a law that says they are supposed to.

Using licensed contractors is a legal requirement unless you are doing it to your own home for your own use - you cannot do your own work on property you intend not to live in - or rent out, however, becuase you are dealing with the safety of someone else.  Again, these are legal requirements.

If you do not like the laws or ordinances (where the city is concerned) please change them - many people would be behind some of those changes. But, untli them - we still have to obey the laws, or suffer the consequences (if there are any).

There are plenty of other countries to live in which still handle things in the mid-evil methods of Old England.  You should fit right in there.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for some explainations as to this John thing and those houses.  And someone please tell me how you get properties for FREE.

mrmorency

@JulieR....

With all due respect, you left out a bit about the marriage clause. I'm not familiar with the exact wording of the entire thing, but, I do know a little. Based on experience, personal experience, the person can and will lose their assets regardless of marital status if their partner is deceased. This woman was living alone (except for her cats) so she was either a widow or never married. Which again goes back to what I stated earlier. To touch on the idea that all her finances would have to be used up before seizing the property... do you really think she had a lot to work with? She was reportedly living in sub-standard conditions with (rumored) numbers close to a hundred cats. Chances are it didn't take long to burn through whatever she may have had.

mrmorency

Let's attempt to clear this thing up. The property in question is 722 Curran Street, currently owned by someone other than John Arnold. It was sold 7/16/2009 as a fiduciary deed. For those of us who are unfamiliar with these kind of things like I was, allow me to just give a quick description.

"Essentially, a fiduciary is an individual who has been authorized to handle the financial affairs of another person. This responsibility may have come about due to assuming guardianship of an individual who is no longer capable to manage due to illness or emotional breakdown. In other instances, the fiduciary may have been appointed as a trustee, executor, or conservator for management of the estate of a loved one who has recently passed away. "

From what I can grasp from this is that the current owner, Matthew J Ruff (not John Arnold), purchased this property from the fiduciary of this elderly woman's estate. Now before JulieR says it, it does show the sale as being "not valid". Perhaps someone else can figure that one out. In closing, John Arnold didn't "drag an elederly woman from her home". So, that's not a fact.

BEHAPPY, you seem to be the very opposite of what your name is. Can you prove there was a single cat drowned? Are you mad you weren't invited to his parties? Those are rhetorical questions, I already know the answers. Perhaps you should work on proving these slanderous claims you make. Hiding behind the vail of anonymity seems to embolden you to say whatever it is you've ever heard bad about the Arnold's.

BEHAPPY

@MRMORENCY

It is quite obvious you are either a friend or relative of Mr. Arnolds, if not he himself.   Just an FYI, I do not start or spread rjumors.  There are plenty of people who know of this drowning of cats.  Earlier I posted I did not want to bring up the name of Mr. Arnolds next door neighbor that is also guilty of this animal abuse,  yes you have it , Mr. Ruff.

Can you prove she had ONE HUNDRED cats?  If she did, where are they now?   My, my, how things seem to just fall into place here.  Where are they? Old lady w/ cats, old lady is taken from her home suddenly, cats disappea retc.,  you figure it out. 

You say:  BEHAPPY, you seem to be the very opposite of what your name is. Can you prove there was a single cat drowned? Are you mad you weren't invited to his parties? Those are rhetorical questions, I already know the answers. Perhaps you should work on proving these slanderous claims you make. Hiding behind the vail of anonymity seems to embolden you to say whatever it is you've ever heard bad about the Arnold's

To answer your questions, No, I am not mad because I do not get invited to their parties,  I do not associate with animal abusers.  Very mean, nasty hateful people that will get what's coming to them one way or another.

As for BEHAPPY,  I, sir, am quite happy.  Just because I do not believe in people purposely causing harm/death to cats just because they live in HIS precious neighborhood (other than making one feel like a MAN) does not mean I am not happy.  Drive down his street, do you see any cats?   Bet not.

Maybe you are correct about proof of my "slanderous claims",  maybe the ones who KNOW that this goes on need to get TOGETHER and PROVE it.
 

As for hiding here in anonymity, you do not seem to be doing bad yourself.  Morency, real name?  If so how are you affiliated to these "gentlmen"?   I bet you know what really goes on if you know them so well.  If not, your name here should be "misled" not Mrmorency.

BEHAPPY

BTW, the "old lady" w/ cats, her cats are not the only cats that have "disappeared" around there.  Any cat that dares to walk through that precious street are doomed.

sanduskysteve

bhappy - you really need to get your proof together and not just because you say it's so - you were wrong about him buying the house and forcing her out and killing off her cats.  You could be wrong about the rest of what you say as well.

the answers I was looking for were answered and very well, I might add.  The fact that this John has nothing to do with the demise of the "old lady"'s house kind of puts most of your theory in the toilet doesn't it???

The cats probably run away when the house was opened up.

Bring me proof and I'll begin to see what's going on.

BEHAPPY

You can believe whatever you want to believe SANDUSKYSTEVE.  Makes no difference to me.  Where did I say that   Mr. Arnold bought the house? 

Pages