Laserfiche WebLink
1 • <br />copy of the perinit that was subinitted. Mr. Grusenmeyer said all information submitted was after <br />the fact. A perinit for the sign face change was submitted after the sign was installed and doesn't <br />include the costs of all the worlc performed. <br />Mr. Papotto asked if the applicant applied for a permit to do the work which was done, would <br />they have been granted a permit and Mr. Grusenmeyer said no. Mr. Allain said it's the board's <br />obligation to review taking all the facts into consideration and then deciding whether to affirm, <br />modify, reverse or vacate the ruling. Mr. Grusenmeyer laid out the facts to- establish his position <br />when he considered his ruling. The applicant knew it's his burden to provide the required <br />documentation for his argument that the cost was less than 50% of the total value yet he has not <br />provided a brealcout of the total costs to establish his argument. He hasn't met his burden and the <br />board should affirm the building commissioner's position. Ms. Bellido said the applicant bases <br />his appeal on 1163.10 and has. subinitted contracts for other locations which shows all worlc and <br />costs but not for this location. Mr. Haddad said he forgot the paperwork for the North Olmsted <br />site. Mr. Raig said the applicant knew a permit was required prior to any work being performed <br />yet chose to do the worlc without approval. The applicant's argument is that the work was less <br />than 50% of what it would cost to replace the entire sign. The perinit the applicant provided <br />states only the sign face will be changed at the cost of $2,900 which leads him to believe the <br />worlc completed exceeds 50% of the sign's value. Mr. Allain said regardless if you tal<e a pole <br />sign down for maintenance or just do a sign face change you have to communicate with the <br />building department, you can't say you filled it out but left it on your desk because your caught <br />doing work without the proper permits. Mr. Allain said it needs to be a priority of the BZA to <br />back the city's laws to ensure business owners pull pernlits prior to any worlc being performed. <br />The appellant determined he was going to do worlc at the site without approval or permits, then <br />once caught requests an appeal of the officials ruling, bases his argument on the worlc performed <br />was less than 50% of the cost to replace the sign, and submits contracts for other sites showing <br />costs and says he forgot the contract for the North Olmsted store. He has not met his burden of <br />proo£ The building official made the deterinination that this was a pole sign and regardless if it <br />fell or was removed or if it was out of the ground five minutes or five weelcs, once the non- <br />conforming sign was t•emoved the site is prohibited from having a pole sign. <br />Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mr. Papotto, to affirm the decision of the building <br />commissioner as written: APP14-1936: Lulie Stop of 28401 Lorain Road their request to <br />appeal the decision of the Building Commissioner that the removal of an existing pole sign <br />and installation of a new sign pole at this location constitutes a new pole sign, which is in <br />violation of sections 1163.10 and 1163.31 and must be removed, which passed 5-0. <br />ADJOURNMENT <br />With no fiirther business, the meeting adjourned a <br />, <br />J n fer Ru o ph, Chair <br />Approved: