05/01/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, 7. Maloney made a motion to table the Rankin and Miller cases until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. IV. CONIMi1NICATIONS: Mr. Maloney pointed out that the board members all received a memo regarding Ordinance 2003-36. He said if anyone would like further discussion, they can take care of it at the next meeting. Mr. Kremzar asked Mr. O'Malley if he had any comments. Mr. O'Malley said he believes the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance and he presumes that the ordinance has been approved by Council. Mr. Kremzar asked why the proposal was not presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals since it affects the board. He pointed out it went to the Planning Commission which has no jurisdiction. He asked why the Board of Zoning Appeals was not notified, told or given any explanation. Mr. O'Malley said the City's charter calls for a review of zoning ordinances by the Planning Commission. The charter does not contemplate review of zoning ordinances by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Kremzar said it is the Board of Zoning Appeals' decisions that would be appealed. Mr. O'Malley said this would allow the City Council to take an appeal from a board decision. Mr. Kremzar said the ordinance would affect the Board of Zoning Appeals either directly or indirectly. Mr. O'Malley said he would not agree with that. He said the Board of Zoning Appeals sits as a quasi-judicial body. It makes independent unbiased decisions based on the evidence presented to it. It is an adversarial system to some extent. Mr. Kremzar asked what would be entailed if the board is taken to court. Mr. O'Malley pointed out the board is not taken to court. The Council takes an appeal from a decision that the board rendered. Mrs. Sergi asked if the members would be questioned on a case. Mr. O'Malley replied the board's orders would stand as written on the minutes, in the records. The clerk would prepare a body of evidence and forward a transcript to the court. Mr. Konold said his understanding is the issue will be discussed next week at the Council meeting. Mr. O'Malley said he believes the sponsor, Mr. Gareau, did not intend to hurt anyone's feelings or insult anyone by this legislation. He thinks Mr. Gareau, in his private practice, encountered a scenario in another city where the city had not entertained and installed a procedure into its code as required by the Ohio Supreme Court, and the city was handicapped in some respect. It had to live with the results. 1VIr. Kremzar asked whether Council already has 30 days to object to a decision. Mr. O'Malley said it does in some limited circumstances. It depends upon the provision of the code that is being dealt with by the board. By and large, the primary area where the board is issuing orders, that is an area that in the absence of this legislation, it would be final. Mr. Kremzar asked what would happen if an applicant proceeds with plans and then the board is overruled. Mr. O'Malley said taking an appeal, seeking to enjoin the issuance of a building permit or to enjoin the commencement of construction, or filing a stay on a board's order, there are a number of procedural remedies that would be available to a property owner, to an aggrieved neighboring property owner that might object. Mrs. Sergi asked if this has been an issue in North Olmsted. She asked if there was something that was approved that someone, somewhere, did not want approved. Mr. O'Malley said no, not to his knowledge. He said there is a 30 day appeal period, 30 days from the date of a final order. Mrs. Sergi asked who makes the appeal. Mr. O'Malley said that a variance that the board granted or denied 6 months ago is a done deal. He said whether it is the City or an individual that was denied, there are 30 days from the date of a final order to file an appeal. Mr. O'Malley said a person could argue that the appeal is not final until the minutes are approved and it is 30 days from that point. It would extend it to 60 days from the date the board actually rendered the decision, but if there is a neighboring property owner who doesn't like a variance the board granted, they sat on their hands and watched someone put up a fence they didn't approve of, and didn't take action, and showed up 60 days later to file an appeal, the appeal would be mute. It would have to be timely. Mr. Maloney said the board members will review the memo. V. AI2JOURNMENT: Chairman Maloney adjourned the meeting at 8:45 )-vt (; Jo aloney, Chairman I Annie Kilbane, Asst. Clerk of Commissions