10/04/2005 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 10/4/2005 intensity of the proposed use is such that its operation will not be objectionable to neazby dwellings by reason of greater noise, smoke, dust, odors, fumes, vibrations, or glaze than is normal or permitted by the performance standards of the district. When sent back from the Building, Zoning and Development Committee, the North Olmsted Planning Commission issued the following findings of fact: The Planning Commission finds "that expert witnesses presented by the applicant were credible and offered substantial probative and reliable evidence, especially in support of subsection c of 1118.03. Two separate studies were undertaken at the existing facility. It's comprised of the same paint booths to be relocated for the proposed use. Both air quality studies confirm the absence of appreciable odor or paint fumes arising from the normal operation of the paint booth." At the BZD Committee meetings, residents Byron Vine and Melissa Meredith spoke on both occasions about the potential for harm to come from noxious odors or fumes. Mr. Vine pointed out that the study seemed flawed based upon the inability of the examiner to detect even trace amounts of particulate or emissions from any source, let alone paint booths, from a distance of 125 feet. Second, the residents in the neighborhood were seniors and would spend most of their day near the facility as opposed to coming and going as other residents might. He expressed a concern about harm to potential nearby properties in the event of fire. Both Mr. Vine and Ms. Meredith felt that this proposed use would have a negative impact on the city, their housing values, and their quality of life in general. It should be noted, while residents acknowledged along-standing history of property maintenance issues with Suburban, both individuals made it clear that any suggestion that their concerns in this particular matter had anything to do with the property maintenance issues of long standing was incorrect. All three concerns, among others, were addressed by the applicant. As previously stated, the applicant had hired a professional in industrial hygiene to conduct sampling of the area surrounding Suburban's current paint booth location. That individual determined that on a typical day no particles of material were detectable. The applicant provided a significant amount of evidence that the new addition should not cause negative impacts to neighbors. At the BZD Committee meeting, a representative from the booth manufacturer was present and explained the operation of the booth in terms of its filtration system and its ability to filter air before emitting it into the environment. Based on review of 1118.03 and 1118.04, this body is to confirm the findings of the Planning Commission and determine whether the use is consistent with the legislative purposes of the Zoning Code. The BZD Committee and this Council as a body was not to be the finder of fact, was not to take new evidence, was not to solicit testimony with respect to impact. But in essence, Council is reviewing what was presented to the Planning Commission and are to make a decision from there. It is his understanding that the issue was for all practical purposes presented in entirety to the Planning Commission, and then it was brought forward to Council. Thus, the purpose for the findings and the report to Council. Apart of the record does include a prapasal by the applicant concerning the study that was undertaken, and that was incorporated into the record and made a part of it. Councilman Gazeau called upon the Law Director to clarify whether he had correctly stated the role of Council. Law Director Dubelko said that, when this matter was before the BZD Committee, it was his recommendation to send it back to Planning Commission because he believed that clearly findings were not made by Planning Commission in accordance with 1118.05. 9