My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/25/2003 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2003
>
2003 Planning Commission
>
03/25/2003 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:28 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 7:59:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2003
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/25/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
r . 6 <br />was verbal. Mr. O'1VIalley indicated it was verbal. Mr. Spalding said that since the Planning <br />Commission recommended the matter go back to the law department maybe they should get something in <br />writing. Mrs. Hoff-Smith suggested reviewing the minutes of the Council meeting. Mr. Spalding said <br />he would like to have Mr. Dubelko's comments relative to the Council meeting. Mrs. Kilbane asked that <br />the Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman, Mr. Maloney, be copied on the memo since he has expressed <br />some concern about the ordinance. IVIr. O'Malley said the zoning code and/or the charter contemplates <br />that if Council is going to pass an amendment to the zoning code it is required to go to the Planning <br />Commission for review. It does not go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for review, but any citizen or <br />member of the Board of Zoning Appeals can make a comment at a Planning Commission meeting or <br />before Council, or in writing. They have access to public records. Mr. Conway said this meeting has <br />reminded him of the Romp proposal. He asked Mrs. Kilbane if the Office of Commissions has received <br />anything in writing formally requesting the withdrawal of the Romp proposal. Mrs. Kilbane indicated <br />she has not seen anything submitted in writing. Mr. Conway suggested that the office generate a letter to <br />Romp to ask what their position is. Mr. O'Malley said they are withdrawing because they concluded it <br />was not going to be possible to get the lot split accomplished with all of the conditions and requirements. <br />He said Mr. Romp expressed to him that his new plan was to have the developer buy the entire L-shaped <br />lot and that if and when they have a new development, they might be back again some day with the same <br />or a similar lot split in conjunction with a development plan. Mr. O'Malley asked him to make the <br />withdrawal formal and in writing. Mr. Romp indicated they would but they had not worked out the <br />details of their new purchase agreement or amended purchase agreement. In the meantime, an attorney on <br />behalf of Drug Mart has logged in and asked to be notified if and when anything official is presented. <br />Mrs. O'Rourke pointed out Mr. Romp will not be involved in any future proposal if the lot is sold. Mr. <br />O'Malley said he believes that is Romp's goal, to turn it over to the developer to deal with Drug Mart. <br />Mr. Spalding asked if there is anything new on Parcel E. Mr. Conway said a new proposal is supposed <br />to be submitted to his office and they will review it and let the Planning Commission know the situation. <br />He said there will have to be a mailing. Mrs. Kilbane indicated that nothing has been submitted so far <br />and they are scheduled to be on the agenda in two weeks. Mr. O'1VIaIley said it may not have been clear <br />to them that they were to submit something in writing. 1VIr. Conway said he told them they need to <br />submit something. He wants the Office of Commissions to notify the residents so they don't show up in <br />two weeks and the matter isn't ready to be addressed because nothing was submitted. Mr. O'Malley said <br />the developer was asked to go back to the drawing board and they are looking for inore time. They may <br />not be ready for the April 8th meeting. Mr. Conway said perhaps a letter should be sent to the developer <br />asking them if they intend to appear at the next meeting so there will be time to do a mailing. Mr. Lasko <br />asked if the 60-day clock is running. Mr. Conway said if they withdraw that holds it. Mr. O'Malley <br />pointed out that withdrawing from the agenda and withdrawing the proposal are different. 10'Ir. Lasko <br />said he thinks they would have to withdraw the proposal altogether. 1dIr. O'Malley said they could <br />stipulate to a stay on the time. He does not believe they are in jeopardy of the 60-day rule yet. 1!'Ir. <br />Conway reminded the board that they are dealing with the use of the land and not the actual development. <br />VI. CONIlVIITTEE REP'ORTS: <br />VII. MiNOR CHANGES: <br />VIII. NEW BUSINESS: <br />IX. OLD BUSINES S : <br />X. ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chairman Spalding excused the absence of Mr. Koeth and Mr. Hreha. He <br />then adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. ?, <br />b <br />Walter Spalding( Vice 0ra:i??an D'ate ? Annie Kilbane, Assistant Clerk of Commissions <br />\I 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.