Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />..;._,- <br />Chairman Gomersall advised that the Board has been requested to reconsider a <br />variance which was denied for Biskind Realty Company at the September 4th <br />meeting. He advised that the Board must consider whether or not that they believe <br />that sufficient new information has been presented to warrant reconsidering this <br />issue at the November meeting. He stated that he agreed with some of the points <br />in the letter this it is important to the financial stability of North Olmsted to <br />develop tax paying markets and other retail, he disagreed that the subject sign <br />had any appreciable effect of luring potential tenants and developers to North <br />Olmsted. As previously stated, he believed that the Board had been generous in <br />approving the sign for 1 year and extending it for another. He pointed out that <br />at fhe time of the extension the Board had been assured that no further extension <br />would be requested. Mr. Maloney stated that he reviewed the request and he could <br />see nothing to change his opinion at this point. Mr. Grace stated that he was at <br />the previous meetings and it was stated that another extension would not be <br />needed, and sees no reason to change the decisionm Mr. Restifo concurs. B. <br />Gomersall moved to reconsider the Biskind Realty variance request at the November <br />meeting, seconded by T. Restifo. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Restifo, Grace, <br />and Nlaloney, no. Motion failed to pass. Request will not be reconsidered and Mr. <br />Gomersall requested that the Building Department take the necessary action to <br />ha.ve the sign removed, pointing out that the 30 day period allowed to remove the <br />sign should be almost over. Building Commissioner Conway advised that a 30 day <br />period starts after an order has been given to remove the sign, but that order <br />has not been given as yet. The Board believed that the order was given at the <br />last meeting, and was held up by the Mayor. Mr. Conway stated that legally he had <br />to give them 30 day after notice had been given by the Building Department. The <br />Board asked that this be done as quickly as possible. <br />Law Director Gareau advised that, in reference to the Sunset Memorial Court case, <br />the Court of Appeals has reversed the Commons Pleas order to uphold the decision <br />of the Board of Zoning Appeals because the ruling of Council was taken at a <br />special meeting. He had argued that Council had been on vacation, and the only <br />way they could ha.ve ruled was to have a special meeting. <br />He further advised that the Law Department is tiying to get the issue of the <br />Clark Oil canopy to the Ohio Supreme Court, but so far they ha,ve not been <br />successful. <br />The members went into an executive session. <br />The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.