08/11/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ma a? zine, which could be used as an exhibit. He said Mrs. VanAuken was featured and he believes there is a photograph of the building in question. Mr. Lang said an attorney advised him that hearsay evidence is not admissible. He asked if the board's evidence is bound by the rules of hearsay and civil procedure. Mr. O'Malley said he does not believe so. He said if Mr. Halleen wanted to describe that he spoke with a number of people and based on those discussions he related those stories, the board would have to take it for what it is worth. N1r. Lang asked if they need to act on the application tonight. He said his understanding is the board has to do that. Mr. O'Malley said that is his thinking as well. He said the board has to hear the applicant within thirty days and within thirty days after the hearing, the board will make findings and recommendations to approve or deny the application. He said perhaps the findings and recommendation can come in a written form based upon the minutes that are taken from the meeting. He said the board might reach a conclusion tonight and they might have written findings and a recommendation in the form of an order to be approved by the approval of the minutes at the next meeting. Mr. Lang said there is always the matter of the certificate of appropriateness, which they are supposed to issue after a vote. He said on that certificate it describes what the board has either approved or denied. That will be reflected in the minutes of the meeting and also be reflected on this particular certificate as an addendum if it does not fit in the space provided. Mr. O'Malley said he thinks there are three options. One is to find no detrimental effect and the board approves. The other is the board finds detrimental effect and therefore the board declines to approve throughout the six months, during which time they study the alternatives. The third option is to deny it. The board makes a determination, whether it's tonight or based upon the approval of written findings in fact at the next meeting, and it's denied. Mr. Corell said they had discussion last month on some of the historical characteristics of this corner and the building. He asked if they can use that portion of last month's minutes to be incorporated as if here and spoken tonight. Mr. O'Malley said it can be used. Mr. Corell said he is somewhat concerned because from last month it would appear the calendar began clicking on a different date. He said regardless of the outcome of a vote, he believes the applicant is entitled to something definitive from the board tonight, one way or the other. Mr. O'Malley agreed and suggested a course of action to address the issue of detrimental effect if any. Mrs. VanAuken said she would like to be clear on what it is they are determining. She said they could grant permission to demolish the building, or secondly, they could say they don't feel there is enough testimony from people in the community so inore time is needed to develop an opinion. She asked if that would then be the thirty days. Mr. O'Malley said no, number two would be the board is able to address the issue of the detrimental effect if any. If the board finds there would be a detrimental effect, then the board would withhold the approval pending the six months to study. Mr. Corell said there could then also be negotiations for alternate uses. Mr. O'Malley said that is correct. Mrs. VanAuken asked for clarification on the issue of thirty days. Mr. O'Malley explained the time frame involved. Mr. Lang asked for audience comments. Ms. Jean Nagy commented that if the building is a landmark building, it should not have been sold to Halleen. Mr. Lang said there is nothing in any of the codes of the city that prevents transfer of landmark properties from one owner to another. Ms. Nagy indicated she is not for or against anything, she just wanted knowledge of what was happening. Mr. Lang said the building itself is not designated a landmark, it is contained within the landmark district. Mr. Lang said when you demolish a building you demolish a story and at this point he paraphrased from Chapter 165 of the code. He said it is their feeling that demolition of either or both of the buildings on the parcel identified, would have a detrimental effect upon the district. Since 1898, which makes it the oldest remaining building in North Olmsted built specifically for commercial use, it is integral to an understanding of the heritage of this city. It has housed at various times the following enterprises: a grocery store, a post office, a bank, doctors offices, antique store, a back shop, and floral shop. It housed the bank until the 1930's when the Bank of Berea built a new stone building next door which is also up for a demolition permit. All the while there have been offices or apartments on the upper floors. At this point, he said he would entertain a motion from the commission to make a determination as to what direction they should take. 4