My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/20/2003 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2003
>
2003 Board of Building Code Appeals
>
03/20/2003 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:18 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 7:37:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2003
Board Name
Board of Building Code Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/20/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
commissioner froin issuing a permit. The issuance of a building permit is a significant legal matter. He <br />does not know if the fence has been installed. He said that is probably the next time the board would <br />hear about this matter. On the issue of reconsideration, that is not such a simple matter. To the extent <br />that the board does not have specific rules, it could consider that it has inherent authority to reconsider its <br />decisions but not without analysis of the rights of the parties involved. It is difficult to reconsider on a <br />variance that has been granted when the applicant has already obtained a building permit based upon the <br />variance that was issued. If Mrs. Comodeca thought that her letter to the board would result in some <br />action tonight, he would have expected her to appear to explain if it is a notice of appeal, a request for <br />reconsideration. If it is a request for reconsideration, does she want to be heard on it? The board could <br />respond to it, but he does not know if the board is compelled to respond. One response could be that, to <br />the extent that it constitutes a written request for reconsideration, the board could entertain it as such. If <br />the board is contemplating reconsideration then he would recommend that they convene a further hearing <br />to invite the applicant in to be heard on the issue of reconsideration. They would reopen the matter and <br />then they would get into the merits a second time. Mr. Puzzitiello said he thought the parties were going <br />to work it out themselves. Mr. Conway said the board made the decision to grant the variance and he <br />does not see how they can change it since there is no one present regarding the matter. They do not <br />know if it has been taken any further to the court of common pleas. Mr. O'Malley said if it was, the <br />board would lose jurisdiction over it and they could not entertain a request for reconsideration. He said <br />Mrs. Comodeca's recourse would be in the common pleas court to have the board's ruling reversed. He <br />said a person can pursue an appeal like that and seek a reversal and in the meantime, building permits are <br />issued and fences are built while your appeal is still being considered. He pointed out that he spoke with <br />Mrs. Comodeca and he explained to her that she might do well to seek counsel if she is serious about <br />pursuing this matter. He added that she understood very well that making an appeal or requesting <br />reconsideration is very different than an action to enjoin the building commissioner from issuing a permit <br />or to enjoin her neighbor from building the fence. Mr. O'Malley said if the board is inclined to say that <br />the correspondence is a request to reconsider the prior deterinination, they could say yea or nay, motion <br />for reconsideration granted or motion for reconsideration denied and put an end to it once and for all. He <br />said he believes Mrs. Comodeca will continue with this matter and she will want to know what happened <br />with the letter and.why no one responded to it, etc. Mr. Althen said the board already discussed this with <br />her. He said that if she was that concerned she would have gone to the higher courts with it. Mr. <br />O'Malley pointed out that when saying the matter was discussed with her, it was the night the proposal <br />came before the board and she was heard. The matter was heard and it has been decided, so it is over. <br />Mr. Puzzitiello mentioned she asked how to apply for an appeal. He suggested to her that she get an <br />attorney, and at that time she did not want to do that. Mr. O'Malley said to make the record clear on this <br />and conclude it. He said he is assuming the board has not lost jurisdiction by virtue of a notice of appeal <br />to the court of common pleas. He thinks it is a safe assumption but if it is incorrect, whatever decision <br />the board inakes on this request for reconsideration would not be binding. <br />M. Conway inade a motion to grant reconsideration. The inotion was seconded by N. Althen and <br />unanimously denied. <br />V. COMIVIITTEE REPORTS: <br />VI. NEW BUSINESS: <br />VII. OLD BUSINESS: <br />VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Puzzitiello adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p,.m. <br />0 <br />itiello, Chairman <br />Kilbane, A'ssistant Clerk of Commissions
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.