My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/11/2003 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2003
>
2003 Planning Commission
>
03/11/2003 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:28 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 8:00:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2003
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/11/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
-.. < 6 • <br />legal council to represent them selves at the appeal, just for the city. Those are their concerns <br />the conflict of interest and the requirement of a third party which would require additional <br />funds. There is an alternative that the Law Department could look into, that is being a home <br />rule city and that the entire process is established by ordinance not charter. Perhaps council <br />could be given the ability to over rule Board of Zoning Appeals ruling with a 2/3 vote of <br />council. Then if the owner/developer wants to take the city to court to reaffirm Board of <br />Zoning Appeals ruling it would be their expense not the cities. Mr. O'Malley indicated that <br />the Law Director ultimately would advise council on some of the comments Mr. Burns <br />brought up. It would be premature for him to try to address the issues brought forth. The <br />Law Director will do a substantial amount of research to make sure that the right thing is <br />done. He believes that the premise of the ordinance is so that the city could if necessary, take <br />issue with a variance from the code and take it to court. This is more Council business then <br />Planning Commission. Mr. Spalding questioned if there was any urgency to passing the <br />ordinance. He questioned if it would be appropriate to table the issue to allow the law <br />department the opportunity to look into the issues brought up. Mr. O'Malley indicated "yes". <br />W. Spalding motioned to not approve the ordinance until the lavv department has had <br />further review. K. O'Rourke seconded the motion, whach was unanimously approved. <br />Mr. Burns indicated that ordinance 99-77, which is a lighting ordinance just, passed and the <br />original ordinance was written very poorly. Mr. Conway put a lot of work into the rewriting <br />of the ordinance to make it work. He wanted to commend Mr. Conway for the excellent <br />version that ended up passing. <br />3. Continued discussion of Master Plan Review: <br />Chairman Koeth indicated that the board would place the continued discussion of the master <br />plan review on every agenda and if time allows the topic will be discussed. <br />VI. CONIlVIITTEE REPORTS: <br />VII. MINOR CHANGES: <br />VIII. NEW BUSINESS: <br />IX. OLD BUSINESS: <br />X. AD70URNMENT: <br />R. Koeth motioned to excuse the absence of Board member C. Allan and adjourn the <br />meeting. K. O'Rourke seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. <br />Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. <br />91 <br />Koeth, Chairman / D?e: Idnia Rote, Clerk of Commissi no
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.