My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/07/1998 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
1998
>
04/07/1998 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2014 8:42:02 AM
Creation date
1/10/2014 4:43:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
4/7/1998
Year
1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Council Minutes of 4/7/98 <br />the first amendment to the United States Constitution. That is exactly the case in North <br />Olmsted. The sign code's enforcement mechanism is unlawful and vague. The code does <br />not have objective and detailed standards to limit the discretion of enforcement officials. <br />The code grants authority to the North Olmsted building officials to forcibly enter <br />property and remove non-conforming signs against the will of the owner which blatantly <br />violates due process rights. The current sign code is unreasonable. The city passed a law <br />requiring the removal or alteration of approximately 80% of the signs in the city. We had <br />previously requested an opportunity to sit down with city officials to review reasonable <br />amendments to the sign law, but have been told that no such amendments would be <br />entertained. Therefore, we had no alternative but to seek to secure property owners' <br />rights through the court action. We remain committed to working with the city to find a <br />reasonable and workable resolution to this dispute. However, with the city currently <br />citing various property owners for alleged violations and with numerous sign permit or <br />variance applications being judged under what legal counsel informs us are <br />unconstitutional standards, the city must agree to cease enforcement of the current sign <br />code before we wr11 withdraw our lawsuit." <br /> <br />LEGISLATION <br />Ordinance No. 97-67 introduced by Mayor Boyle was given its third reading. An <br />ordinance authorizing the Mayor of the City of North Olmsted to enter into an agreement <br />with Cablevision of the Midwest, Inc. for the purpose of renewing a lease of land from the <br />City of North Olmsted Recreation Complex for aone-year term, and declaring an <br />emergency. Mr. O'Grady moved to table; second by Mr. Limpert; motion passed <br />unanimously. Ordinance No. 97-67 is tabled. <br />Ordinance No. 98-15 introduced by Mayor Musial was given its third reading. An <br />ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the agreement for the <br />establishment of the Westshore Council of Governments and the Bylaws of the Westshore <br />Enforcement Bureau, as further described in Exhibit "A" and declaring an emergency. Mr. <br />O'Grady moved for adoption; second by Mr. McKay; motion passed unanimously. <br />Ordinance No. 98-15 adopted. <br />Ordinance No. 98-17 introduced by Mayor Musial was given its third reading. An <br />ordinance creating new Section 505.13 of Chapter 505 of the General Offenses Codes <br />entitled "Animals & Fowl" to require rabies vaccination of cats and dogs, and provide <br />criminal penalties against pet owners who fail to comply, as amended. Mr. Nashar moved <br />for adoption; second by Mr. McKay. Roll call: Nashar, yes; McKay, yes; Kasler, yes; <br />Gareau, no, with comment: He shares in the concerns of the administration about the <br />potential outbreak for a rabies illness, but disagrees with both the immediacy of the threat <br />and the means used to address the potential future problem. Specifically, he disagrees <br />with the need to require vaccination of strictly indoor animals, especially indoor cats. He <br />feels this requirement imposes an unnecessary medical cost to residents owning animals <br />that rarely or never will be outside the home and will never be exposed to rabies infected <br />animals in the wild. He further disagrees with the ordinance in that it imposes the <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.