11/03/2014 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The following is the Conclusions of Fact submitted by the Law Department December 31, 2014 and moved into the body of the November 3, 2014 minutes ? The applicant Albert Haddad, representative of Ellet Neon Sign, testified on behalf of Ellet Neon Sign and acted in the capacity as an authorized representative of property owner Argonne Automotive, LLC. (collectively "Applicant") In June of 2014, Applicant, without first obtaining a permit from the Building Department, removed from the ground a sign at 28401 Lorain Road (hereinafter "site"). The sign that was removed was a"Pole Sign" as defined at North Olmsted Codified Ordinance §1163.02(g). North Olmsted Codified Ordinance § 1163.31 provides that "pole signs are not permitted in any district." A"IlOll-COI7fOCllllllg SIg17" is "any sign existing on or afterthe effective date ofNorth Olmsted Ordinance 2000-12 wllich does not conform to said ordinance in its entirety." North Olmsted Codified Ordinance §1163.02(l). The Pole Sign existing at the site before it was removed was a"non-conforming sign" under North Olmsted Codified Ordinance § 1163:02(1). Notwithstanding the prohibition against pole signs, a non-conforming pole sign may be maintained, except: No nonconforming sign or part thereof shall be altered, modi.fied, relocated, or changed in any manner whatsoever in any process of reconstruction, repair, maintenance, or restoration, when the cost of said reconstruction, repair, maintenance, or restoration exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the sign's replacement cost, unless the entire sign shall be brought into compliance with all of the provisions of this chapter, and all other applicable City laws and ordinances. See North Olmsted Codified Ordinance § 1163.10(a). 8. The then-existing, non-conforming sign at the site was removed in its entirety from the site without a permit. The sign cabinet frame, sign faces and electrical wiring were replaced and the pole was removed down to grade and replaced with a new pole of a different diameter. The replacement sign is of a"pole sign" design. 9. Applicant's complete removal of the pole sign from the site, together with i:eplacement of sign components, constituted a new pole sign. 10. As a new sign installed after the effective date of Ordinance 2000-12, the sign is not a non- conforining sign under Nortli Olmsted Codified Ordinance § 1163.02(I). 11. As a new sign, the sign must comply with the zoning code. A"pole sign" is not permitted under the code. No?-th Olmsted Codified Ordinance § 1163.31. 12. Applicant's testimony that the sign was repaired, maintained or restored, as permitted with limitations under the code at North Olmsted Codified ordinance § 1163.10, was not persuasive. Applicant's testimony as to the pole sign's "replacement cost" was not specific to this site or to the unique characteristics of this sign. Further, Applicant presented no evidence as to the actual cost of this alleged "reconstruction, repair or restoration," as would be required to demonstrate that the worlc was permitted and of such a character so to preserve the pole sign's non-confornling status under the Codified Ordinances of the City of North Olmsted. 13: Based upon these facts the Board affinns the decision of the Building Commissioner as written that the removal of an existing pole sign and installation of a new sign pole at this location constitLrtes a new pole sign, which is in violation of sections 1163.10 and 1163.31.