Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1?' <br />indicated that anything a developer proposed would have to go before the Planning Commission <br />for. approval. Mr. Spalding questioned if the ordinance would be retroactive to existing <br />businesses. Mr. Dubelko commented that a zoning code ordinance could not be applied <br />retroactively. 1VIr. Tallon suggested an automotive repau- shop would have cars stacked 5 deep <br />and tlus ordinance would eliminate that. The only cars that would be allowed outside would be <br />iriutate repairs. The junk ordinance is a good ordinance to keep as well as the new ordinance as <br />there is nothing currently in the code for repair shops. Mr. Hreha indicated that he was aware of <br />the intent of both ordinances. Mr. Tallon reviewed tlie type of businesses that will be affected by <br />the ordinance. The junk ordinance covers cammercial and residential. The new ordinance will be <br />for commercial only. It will be up to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review <br />Board to make sure they put up the nicest enclosure possible. Mr. Hreha commented that he <br />agreed with the intent of both ordinances but was confused as Mr. Gareau indicated at the last <br />Council meeting that the new ordinance replaced 74-112. Mr. Hreha would like to know if this <br />ordinance replaces 74-112 or would they both remain on the books. Mr. Dubelko reviewed that <br />after the Council meeting Mr. Gareau requested that he review ordinance 74-112 and give him a <br />report on what he found. Mr. Gareau sent out a memo today, reviewing what the findings were. <br />Mr. Spalding suggested that the board vote on this ordinance subject to 74-112 not being <br />removed from the books. Mr. Dubelko indicated that Mr. Gareau sent a memo to the 1Vlayor and <br />all of City Council, vvluch he set forth the difference between 521.08 as amended this spring and <br />this proposed ordinance. He indicated that he could assure the board that there is nothing in this <br />ordinance that would repeal ordinance 521.08. <br />R. Tallon motioned to adopt Ordinance No. 99-109. The motion was seconded by W. Spalding <br />unanimously approved. Motion Carried. <br />3). Ordinance No. 99-110: An ordinance creating new section 1119.06 of the North Olmsted <br />Zoning Code requiring that developers report certain income tax information to the city prior to <br />obtaining occupancy pernuts following commercial construction or new residential construction in <br />the city. <br />Mr. Dubelko indicated that Councilman Miller contacted him last evening and asked that the <br />Planning Commission not consider this ordinance. Mr. Miller indicated that he received <br />communication from the Finance Director, which indicates the way the ordinance is written she <br />could not enforce the ordinance or she would like to see additional wording added. No further <br />comments were made regarding ordinance 99-110. <br />4). Ordinance No. 99-113: An ordinance amending section 1119.01 of the North Olmsted Zoning <br />Code, entitled "Building Permit Required," In order to prohibit commercial and new residential <br />developers from obtaining building pernuts for real property development when real property <br />taxes are due and owing. <br />Mr. Dubelko indicated Councilman Miller proposed the ordinance. He believes the intent of the <br />proposal is to make sure people are not permitted to develop their property unless they are <br />current on their real-estate tax's. The Law Department researched and found nothing that would <br />legally prohibit such legislation, therefore it was prepared. It is a new section of the zoning code <br />5