08/27/1987 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS AUGUST 27, 1987 PAGE 2 gravel; some weeds were removed but are piled in the rear of the pro- perty; exterior plywood was used to cover openings, not Texture 111 as stated on the plans, and this plywood has not been painted; b rick has not been pointed. He stated that the graffiti has been removed from the building. Mr. Minotti advised that he has hired Doubrava Gompany to complete the work required, and that the gravel has been ordered, b ut not delivered. Mr. Schulz believes that the demolition order should go forward. Board discussed giving Mr. Minotti another week to complete all work required. Mr. Minotti agreed that work could be completed in that time, and also advised that he has closed off access to the pro- perty except that he has allowed beer trucks to park in the front of the property in order to unload at the adjacent building without tying up traffic on Lorain Road. A. discussion took place relative to parking of vehicles and continued maintenance of the property. R. Galloway moved that the stay of demolition will be continued until midnight of September 3rd at which time the following must be completed; exterior plywood which is securing the doors must be painted an off white to blend in with the building and trimmed out to protect the wood; all pits or cisterns on the property must be filled with gravel; all weeds, junk, and debris must be removed; brick work must be pointed and parapet repaired if necessary; and if this work is not completed by the above date the stay of demolition has been denied and the Building Commissioner is directed to continue with the demolition procedure, seconded by J. Kazak. Roll call on motion: R. Galloway, J. Kazak, and R. Burk, yes. Mr. Schulz, no. Prior to Space Age being heard, Building Commissioner Conway asked to address the Board and advised that he has researched the ordinance which previously required this Board's approval to use any masonry material other than brick and stone and it is not in effect at this time. With the adpotion of the BOCA One, 2wo, and Three family code and the Ohio Basic Building Code for commercial structures there is no longer a section 1311.05. He advised that most of the current codes in effect at this time give approval of a material with an ASTM number or a design and give the build- ing official the option of accepting a comparable material. He thought the Board might like to make a recommendation to the Architectural Board of Review as to which materials they prefer to be used. Mr. Schulz read a legal opinion (1979-2) which stated, in part, ".....if brick or stone is not used to face a commercial building, the approval by the Board of Building Code Appeals of asubstitute material would be necessary. However, if brick or stone is used, the specifications of the building code would be met, and activity by the board unnecessary, unless, for Some reason, the Building Commissioner denied the application for the building permit/ In any event, it is to be stressed that the proper domain of the Board of Building Code Appeals lies in matters of energy conservation, safety, and sanitation, and, if the Board is required to approve a substitute material for the exterior wall of a commercial building, it's discretion is controlled by these three concerns. As to the design aspects of the exterior wall construction, the Architectural Board of Review, as an adjunct of the City Planning Commission, is the proper authority from whom to seek advice...." The Board agreed that it would like to reinstate the ordinance pertaining to these materials since the materials used should be in keeping with the area where the building is being constructed. They will address this later.