7/1/2019 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Borsuk did not understand why the garage door was considered a sign since there was a federal ruling in 2000 which protected art murals from sign regulations. He understood why there are sign regulations but did not believe his art qualified as a sign. He believed his artwork should be able to be displayed on his property. Ms. Manley said the back three walls look great but she did not look at the front of the garage. She wished he had explained what he was doing. Jeff Borsuk pointed out that when Ms. Manley's son confronted him about the paintings, he painted over it within a couple of hours. Ms. Manley was reminded of graffiti in Cleveland and did not want the graffiti in her neighborhood. She mentioned that she was also told she could not have an American flag painted on her garage in 2005 so she did not think it was fair to have to look at graffiti. Mr. Schumann was not criticizing the artwork but there have been multiple complaints that the work was not in keeping of the character of the neighborhood. Jeff Borsuk asked what the character of the neighborhood is since there is not a Homeowners Association. Jeff Borsuk asked what kind of art is allowed and what is banned. Mr. Russell stated that the Building Department supports the Building Commissioner's decision. Mr. Aspery stated the Planning Department also supports the Building Commissioner's decision. Mr. O'Malley said the applicant is appealing the Notice of Violation. He explained that the Board's review of an appeal is narrower than a variance proposal. It comes down to what the definition of a sign is. The Building Commissioner has determined that it is a sign in a residential area. There is extensive case law regarding signage in the area. The applicant mentioned the Chamber of Commerce case brought against the City of North Olmsted where the city's code was found to be unconstitutional. Since then, the sign code has been revised and is determined to be constitutional. He cautioned the Board not to make a determination based on the content because the sign code is content -neutral. The content -neutral code looks at the time, place and manner of signage. The sign code does not differentiate between commercial and non- commercial signs and wall signs are banned in residential areas. There are alternative methods for residents to express themselves without using wall signs. Mr. O'Malley clarified that he is not the advocate of the City's position, he is the legal counsel for the Board. Mr. Papotto asked if there are multiple instances of the same violations, Mr. Russell said there was one violation that covered the entire property. Mr. O'Malley said the Board should decide on the appeal since the applicant presented a case but still left a sign to be decided on. Mr. Raig asked where the photos dated June 5, 2019 and June 11, 2019 came from, Ms. Manley said she submitted them prior to the meeting. Jeff Borsuk asked what the sign definition is. James Borsuk believed that the Councilman's comments were based on the complainants' feelings and interpretation. Mr. Mackey believed the sign is clearly defined in the code which does not include anything about the content so he believed it is a sign, Mr. Rahm agreed. Mr. Papotto appreciated that the applicant abated portions of the violation prior to the meeting. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to grant the appeal for a Notice of Violation of the Building Commissioner of 19-14270; James Borsuk; 5170 Lucydale Avenue, motion denied 0-4. ADJOURNMENT