10/04/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . _4b CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1989 Chairman Bugala called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: R. Gomersall, B. Grace, J. Helon, and R. Bugala Absent: T. Restifo Also present: Law:Director Gareau, Building Commissioner Conway, and Clerk of Commissions Oring. J. Helon moved to approve the amended.minutes of September 6, 1989 as written, seconded by R. Gomersall, and unanimously approved. Chairman Bugala advised that item number 8 has been withdrawn by the developer. 1. American Advertising Corp, 1660 E. 55th St. Cleveland, Ohio Request for ruling (1123.07). Request ruling if searchlight should be considered an attraction device as determined by the Bui.lding Commissioner. Ord. 87-93, Section 1163.07(a). (Defined in Section 1163.03-(c)-9.) Chairman Bugala called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Myers, American Advertising Corporation, who explained that he has been operating his searchlights for 35 years in North Olmsted and has never been stopped. He further explained that the Federal Government considers these lights as anti-aircraft searchlights and the State of Ohio licenses them as motor vehicles. He believes that this type of advertising is quiet and attracts business and subsequently jobs.and as far as he knows there have been no complaints from residentsa Mr. Grace stated that search- lights have been used for years and they cause no real problem. Law Director Gareau advised that the Board must make a finding that a search light is similar to a pennant, spinner, or streamer which by ordinance are considered attraction devices. He stated that if searchlights are not desirable this section of the ordinance should be written to eliminate them. Chairman Bugala advised that he had participated in the writing of the ordinance, and believed that these should be considered attraction devices. He further pointed out that they are gas powered and contribute to pollution. Mr. Gommersall be- lieved that searchlights are differ:ent from attraction devices as describe in the code. B. Grace moved that this:Board rules that a searchlight should not be considered as an attraction device as determined by the Building Commissioner and.as defined in Ord. 87-93, Section 1163.07(a), seconded by J. Helon. Roll call on motion: Grace, Helon, and Gomersall, yes. Mr. Buoala, no. Motion carried. 2. North Olmsted Assembly of God. 3874 Columbia Road Request extension of special permit to construct a pavilion on church property. Special permission required Ord. 87-93, Section 1151.01-E. ' Chairman Bugala called all interested parties before the Roard. The oath was administered to neighbors, Mr. Folley, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Rathbun; and Mr. Pierson, who represented the church. Chairman Bugala advised that Mr. Sakacsi,.a resident at 3890 Columbia Road, was unable to attend the meeting but had stated that he was opposed to the request. Mr. Pierson explained that the 24 by 48 foot open pavilion will be constructed beside the garage in the playground of the church school and will be built to code. -Mr. Folley, who lives next door