12/05/1979 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y 11• I e BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 5, 1979 PAGE 2 Chairman Ledvina explained that the ordinance in.effect at present allows a 4' fence (90% open) but a revised ordinance just passed by Coimcil which will be in effect in 30 days allows a 5' fenceo So in essence, Mr. Green is requesting a 1' variance. E. DeVoto moved to grant a variance to enable the construction of a 6' fence, seconded by C. Remmel and tmanimously approved. Request granted, Building Gommissioner Gundy asked the Board to determi.ne the legality of the mobile temporary sign. He had been issuing permits for these signs as an administrative ftmction was as follows: [7hen the Recre- ation Center was opened to the public a mobile sign was placed on the site by the City for the purpose of advertising the opening. At that time this Department ruled that because of the inadequate pro- visions in the Ordinance (especailly the definition section) mobile, and other temporary signs would be judged and considered by requiring a permit, checking against the total sign area permi.tted, and placing a time limit on the exposure). After the establishment of the Archi- tectural Board of Review, they requested to review these mobile signs. A question has now been raised as to the legality of the mobile sign and if they are permitted at all in the business district of North Olmsted. Law Director M. Gareau advised the Board that he has ruled that according to Ord. 62-33, Section 1225 these signs are not per- mitted, haweve'r, in the definition section (1223.01 C6 & B4), it could have been construed by the Building Commissioner that he could issue permits for these signs. Hawever, it seems there is nothing in Ordinance authorizing the Architectural Board of Review or Planning Commission to review and rule on these signs. Since, however, these these signs are actually not permitted, a variance could be requested from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Building Commissioner GLmdy is asking the Board to rule on this since the Ordinance is not clear. After some discussion and research of the Ordinances, it was deter- mined that Section 1225.02 does out law all temporary signs in the retail area. Chairman Ledvina moved that the Board of Zoning Appeals rules that no temporary signage be allowed in retail districts as stated in Section 1225.02. Also, it is a ruling of this Board that a temporary sign is a sign of such a nature that it does not conform to the Building Codes with respect to placement or construction and also, that teinporary signs include all mobile signs. (This ruling has theweight of law, if adopted, imtil it is rescinded or Lmtil a new Ordinance is passed to supersede it), seconded by C. Remmel, and unanimously approved. The next meeting will be January 9, 1980m The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. D. Led na, Chairman 0. B. Oring9 ding Secretary