04/15/1958 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APRIL 15, 1958 - PAGE 5, The Solicitor advised that he had received information from the State of Ohio, Division of the Building Department, and they are questioning the authority of the City to collect arty inspection fees from the developer on the shopping center on the theory that we do not have a duly authorized Building Department and Mr. Oviatt hasn't, as yet, determined the entire pro- visions which would enable our Building Department to conform to the State Code. In connection with the shopping center, Mr. Oviatt advised that the plans which were submitted to the State were not accompanied by a check, so the State never looked at the plans. The problem has now been resolved but they are appealing the division's refusal to inspect plans and they have deposited the fee "under protest". The Building Commissioner advised Council that last June a building permit was issued to the developer at the shopping center without authority. The State Building Inspector observed that construction was underway and he immediately notified the developers, at that time, to either release the fee or stop con- struction. In connection with the collection of dual fees, Mr. Lundy advised that according to his knowledge very few of the communities have incorporated the State Code and they are collecting a fee. Any commercial building is to go to the State, iri accordance with a law of 1955, and Mr. Lundy advised that from personal observation the State of Ohio is definitely well equipged to handle inspections of that nature and he definitely recor~rnends that the City take ad- vantage of the State's Building Department. The Solicitor commended that the State is definitely well qualified but they de not have sufficient personnel to do all the field work. The Building Commissioner advised that fees actually have not been changed since 1950 and he further advised Council that for a comparison of fees they could refer to the "red book" which would show previous rates. He advised that further development of the Building Department depends on the increased fees. Mr. Lundy stated that we have never had heating inspections. He commended Mr. Wershing as an excellent inspector but stated that it is absolutely impossible to afford proper inspection with the limited personnel. He further commented that he feels that residential building in North Olmsted will increase in the future and the sho~rping center and sanitary sewerage will be additional advantages for the City to offer to prospective home owners. Mr. Lundy then briefly reported on present building in North. Olmsted. Residential permits are down at the moment but ten permits were issued to R.A. Gaul for Sunset Oval, which homes will definitely be an asset to the City. With regard. to commercial building, Payless Gas Station was issued a permit arid, in ac- cordance with State rule, the plans were submitted for State approval. We actually collected more on the sign fees in this particular instance. The plans of the J.M. Fields Co. definitely do not cover a quonset but type of construction and the building would cover 60,000 sq. feet. Resolution No. 267b was introduced by Mr, Hinkel. A re~~olution requesting the auditor to furnish a certificate of the estimated life of usefulness of the improvement of Lessner Road from Lorain Road to Walter Road, by constructing and installing a five foot concrete public sidewalk on both sides thereof. It was moved by Mr. Hinkel, seconded by Mr. MacDonald that the resolution be adopted as read. "Yeas" Hinkel, Hixson, Kramer, Lynch, MacDonald, O'Neill, Wilson. Certificate of Auditor: The undersigned, City Auditor, as the fiscal officer of the City of North Olmsted, Ohio, as defin~ci by Section 133.01 of the Revised Code of Ohio, hereby certifies as follows: 1. That the estimated life of the property or improvement referred to in your Resolution No. 267b of April 15, 1957 is hereby certified to be at least ten years. 2. The maximum maturity of such notes calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 133.20 of the Revised Code of Ohia is two years. 3. The max:i.mum maturity of the bonds contemplated by said ordinance authorizing issuing of notes is ten years. A7,.7. of which is respectfully submitted. /s/ E.M. Christman, City Auditor