09/11/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R. Tallon motioned to approve Michelle & David Mills of 3512 Dawn Drive their proposal which consists of lot split and consolidation of Permanent Parcel Numbers 231-17-106 (3512 Dawn Dr.), 231-19-001 (3569 Columbia Rd.), and 231-19-083. Permanent Parcel Number 231- 19-083 and the rear 29.12 feet of 3569 Columbia Rd. will be combined with 3512 Dawn Drive. The motion was seconded by W. Spalding and unanimously approved. Motion Carried. V. COMMUNICATIONS: l. Ordinance No. 2001-109 - An ordinance amending sections 1163.02, 1163.10, and 1163.15 of Chapter 1163 (signs) of the zoning code so as to clarify the definition of the word "sign" as used in chapter 1163, and further to provide for the removal of abandoned signs, and nonconforming signs the use of which has been voluntarily discontinued, in a manner which is consistent with the requirements of section 713.15 of the Ohio Revised Code. Chairman Tallon invited the assistant Law Director to review the ordinances for the board members. Mr. Dubelko indicated that 2001-109 is a little more than technical amendments to the new sign code. There are three changes that will be taking place in the sign code, which have been requested by the building department; ftrst in 1163.02 the definition of sign is being amended by eliminating the word pole from the definition. Dan Ryan the prosecutor has some concerns over our definition of sign as well. Issue 1163.10 deals with non-conforming signs where use has been discontinued. 1163.10 provides that if a sign is nonconforming and the use is different for more then 30 days or more the sign can be ordered to be removed. 1163.15 talks of abandoned signs. 1163.15 indicates that use of property is abandoned the sign can be ordered to be removed within 90 days. The State Code provides that the City can not order down a sign for two years involving non-conforming signs. It does have provisions that allow municipalities to order the removal of an abandoned sign so long as it is not shorter than 180 days. It is his opinion that the City should comply with the State Law. In this ordinance 1163.10 and 1163.15 will provide the same time period for both issues and bring the City in compliance to the State Law. R. Tallon motioned to recommend the adoption of ordinance 2001-109. The motion was seconded by T. Hreha and unanimously approved. Motnon Carr6ed. 2. Ordinance Na. 2001-108 An ordinance amending sections 149.02 and 1123.09 of the zoning code in order to establish clear procedures for notice to e given to condominium property owners affected by proposed developments and requested variances. Mr. Dubelko indicated ordinance 2001-108 would be changed due to an error. Two sections are being amended one which is 1123.09 a zoning issue which requires a public hearing and can not be passed as an emergency ordinance. 149.02 is not a zoning code issue it is part of the administrative , code anci does not require a public hearing or referral to the Planning Commission. It can be passed as an emergency ordinance. Planning Commission needs to address amended 2001-108. 2001-108 addresses 1123.09 of the zoning code which addresses notification of variance requests. The amendment provides that a special type of notice be given to condominium owners association in care of the president and secretary of the association. It is then up to the condominium association to pass the word on to the condo owners. There have been times when people say they have not received notification. Mr. Spalding questioned if the 4