Laserfiche WebLink
Board members discussed the project and commented that they liked the look of the fagade and <br />that this building was a staple in the community and they wanted to see these improvements. <br />Motion passed: 5-0 <br />23-24741; 29047 Lorain Road; Silverstein Firm LLC <br />Mr. Gareau explained this case was a hearing on an appeal and briefly explained the basic <br />process that the chair would follow. <br />Representatives: Attorney Komlavi Atsou; Mohammad Dayem; 29047 Lorain Road <br />Mr. Atsou proceeded to ask his client Mr. Dayem questions about his business and products he <br />sells. Mr. Dayem replied he applied for a new business in the City, and listed a number of items <br />he sells in his stores which included; books, blankets, drinks, snacks, household decor, pet - <br />related items, vaping products, e -cigarettes and other items. Mr. Atsou asked Mr. Dayem what <br />percentage of his revenue did he derive from the vaping and the e -cigarettes. Mr. Dayem replied <br />he was pretty sure under 20%, and that it's definitely going to be under 20 % based on their <br />experience. Mr. Atsou went on to explain to the board that the application was submitted and the <br />items that were to be sold were listed as an attachment. He stated the rejection came and it was <br />found that the application was rejected because of two code sections 1139.03(B), and <br />1118.13(C)(1) and (2), and not from an item on the list. Mr. Atsou began reading the code <br />sections out loud and emphasized the section on conditional use. He explained his view of <br />comparing the conditional use of smoke and vape shop and felt his client did not fall into that <br />category. He advised the board the Ohio Revised Code defines a retail vapor store is one that <br />derives 80% of its gross revenue from vaping products and the like. <br />Mr. Gareau asked Mr. Dayem to clarify owners of LLC's specifically who or what entity owned <br />Silverstein LLC. <br />Mr. Dorenkott explained to the board the process of an application that comes in to the building <br />department, what they do with it and where they send it if necessary. He went on to explain that <br />a new business application comes in, building department forwards those to the economic and <br />community development department, and Director Max Upton reviews those and then makes a <br />referral back to the building commissioner. He proceeded to inform the board the specifics that <br />pertained to the hearing. Mr. Atsou questioned Mr. Dorenkott about the memo that Mr. Upton <br />forwarded to Mr. Dorenkott. The memo was a referral to deny the application for new business. <br />There was some more discussion regarding the process that the building department uses and the <br />role of the economic department in making certain decisions. Mr. Dorenkott explained that <br />Director Upton is the zoning officer for the city, and once he made his determination, the <br />building department enforces that decision. Mr. Dorenkott does not challenge Director Upton's <br />decisions and trusts his judgement. <br />Mr. Upton briefly explained to the board how he makes his zoning determination. He proceeded <br />to describe how he looks at an application, and what types of information he looks for and how <br />he conducts his research to make the best decision for the city. He walked through the exhibits <br />the city provided as evidence with the board and described how he took each of these items into <br />consideration when making his decision. Mr. Upton spoke about his findings on the secretary of <br />