5/17/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BUILDING & ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17, 2023 ROLL CALL Mr. Papotto called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present: Bob Papotto, Ralph Mackey, Suzie Patton, Michael Kovach Absent: Dan Rahm Staff: Law Director Michael Gareau, Jr., Director Upton, Building Commissioner Neal Dorenkott, Administrative Assistant Lyn Wilson, Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley, Director Scofield Guests: Attorney Michael O'Shae; counsel for the Building and Zoning Board of Appeals Attorney Malek Khawam; counsel for the applicant; Kovatch Group LLC Applicant witnesses: Dr. Samantha Bahan, 13429 Detroit Ave. Lakewood; Douglas Junquist, 4162 Canterbury; Maroon Mondalak 30131 Lorain Road; COMMERCIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS KOVATCH GROUP LLC; NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 1. Notice of appeal of the imposition of a requirement that Kovatch Group obtain a new Certificate of Zoning Compliance and the City of North Olmsted Building Commissioner's April 6, 2023 determination denying Kovatch Group's Application for New Business or Change in Use. The procedures for the meeting were explained by Mr. Papotto due to the special situation of the meeting that was held. Mr. O'Malley started with his presentation. He explained to the board that there was an appeal filed by the applicant over two orders from the Building Commissioner, which were; the business owner needed to file a new business application or a change in use application; dated March 16th, 2023. He added that the applicant did file the application on March 30; and there was a denial of the application dated April 6th. The denial was prompted by the zoning determination by the Director of Economic Development, Max Upton. Mr. O'Malley explained that on November 1 St, 2022, City Council enacted a moratorium, by ordinance 2022- 100, on the on-site consumption of Kava products and/or delta 8 products, and the like. He went on to say that the use of the property for this type of business was prohibited. The applicant and the applicant's counsel were aware of the moratorium, the applicant filed the application long after the moratorium was enacted, which led to the denial, and was justified. He also stated this use was not recognized or permitted in the zoning code and was subject to the moratorium. The Board was there to enforce a zoning code that dictated, and licensed what uses were permitted in the city and where. He offered an example for comparison to the board, which was; an owner was permitted to sell cellphones at a cellphone store, but then started selling other items like vapes, hookah and delta 8. That owner would be told they were not permitted or licensed for the additional uses. Mr. O'Malley asked the board to deny the appeal and affirm the orders of the building commissioner.