06/03/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hartnett asked if an occupancy permit would have been issued if there were building permit issues and Mr. Grayshaw said he would not until all building inspections were passed however his inspection was for zoning compliance only. Mr. Grayshaw was then asked to review his credentials required for working in the building department which he did. He also briefly reviewed what a zoning compliance inspection was and how it is evaluated. Mr. Hartnett questioned the second visit and if there were any building violations and Mr. Grayshaw said he was aslced to visit the site to note how many people were in the space not to perform a building inspection and there were 25 to 35 individuals in the space. However in his field notes he noted the visual changes made to the space since his first visit including the removal of a wall, counters and cabinets. The addition of light fixtures being added to the walls and several electrical receptacles added for the computer stations installed. Mr. Hartnett asked if a building permit is required for adding receptacles and Mr. Grayshaw said both the North Olmsted Codified and OBC require permits to pull electrical lines for outlets and wall sconces. Regarding counters, cabinets, walls and doorways being removed if they are fixed structures or there is electrical wiring a permit is required prior to removing. He then reviewed what is deemed as minor electrical work and advised that installing or adding additional electrical lines is not minor. Mr. Hartnett asked if an electrical strip which is used to provide power for multiple pieces of equipment require pennits and Mr. Grayshaw said it would need to be evaluated as there are restrictions pertaining to how many cords can be plugged in and how long the cords are for fire safety codes. Mr. Hartnett asked what building code violations exist in the site currently and Mr. Grayshaw advised he could not answer the question as there has not been any building inspections conducted to date at the site. Mr. Hartnett aslced why a second visit was made to the site and Mr. Grayshaw said a complaint regarding the number of occupants was received and the Building Commissioner requested he revisit the site and that is when he noted the visual changes to the interior had been made. Mr. Hartnett asked if permits were required to install carpeting and Mr. Grayshaw said prior to the items being installed in a commercial building the installer of the carpet should be registered to work within the city and the city would need to know what type of carpeting is being installed to make sure it is code compliant and that information was not provided. Mr. Hartnett questioned interior painting requiring a permit and Mr. Grayshaw said recently EPA requires all buildings constructed prior to 1978 which may have led paint issues to be evaluated however that ruling was after the applicants' occupancy. Mr. Hartnett questioned if Mr. Grayshaw believed that an assembly use was a permitted use for the site and Mr. Grayshaw said he did not have an opinion pertaining to the use of the site as that is outside the scope of his job. Mr. Mitchell said although Mr. Grayshaw is the senior inspector he does not do zoning interpretations as that is the Planning Director's and Building Commissioner job. Mr. Hartnett asked if the Building Department was state certified and Mr. Mitchell said yes but the certified plans examiner is contracted. Mr. Hartnett asked if the plans examiner reviewed the plans submitted for the Surf Shop and Mr. Mitchell said no, no detailed plans were submitted. Mr. Hartnett aslced why the site was re-inspected and Mr. Mitchell said the former Safety Director requested he have it inspected. Mr. Hartnett asked if there were any direct complaints made directly to the Building Commissioner and he said no. Mr. Hartnett aslced if Mr. Mitchell knew there were articles in the News Paper pertaining to the Surf Shop and asked if anyone in the Mayors office or any other city official has brought it to Mr. Mitchell's attention that they did not want his clients business in North Olmsted and Mr. Mitchell said no. A brief discussion between the Law Director and Mr. Hartnett ensued regarding whether or not Mr. Hartnett's 6