10/03/2006 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 10/3/2006 ~ who may disagree with this statement. The administration, asrecently aslant week, ,~ initiated a public records request from the EPA. Also, they are considering a third party testing company and are currently looking at the scope of work to be performed. This may take up to four weeks. After considerable discussion, it was determined that our local ordinances need to be updated to give the enforcement capabilities to the city departments. It was established that an odor can be a nuisance without being toxic or harmful. When testing is performed, they sample for compounds. When there is an odor, there may be something volatile. If it is at a dangerous level is what needs to be determined. The State of Ohio has odor nuisance regulations in place and local municipalities can pass ordinaries which are more stringent that state laws. There were some questions raised regarding the height of some of the new stacks installed at this facility. The Mayor requested the Safety Director to present information to Cauneil members as soon as it is available. All of Council are requesting that Mr. Hearne or a representative of the Cleveland Division of Air Quality monitor the one year anniversary testing of the North Olmsted facility. Also, a resident can be present at the time of the testing. • Ordinance 2006-128, an ordinance creating new Section 763.02 of Chapter 763 (Retail Business Regulations) of the Business Regulation Code in order to control noise and odor emanating from vehicle repair est~slishrnents located near residential neighbarhoads, and declaring an emergency. The eras and cans of the ordinance were discussed as were the merits of a specific ordinance which would pertain to specific establishments as versus a broader ordinance which maybe more defensible in court. Mr. Dubelko requested a third party test of any problem facility before this ordinance is adopted. Mr. Tallan asked if there were any just reasons far which we could turn down a particular permit. Mr. Dubelko stated that we currently do not have a revocation process within our codes, so the answer is no. Questions on the Conditional Use Permit, Chapter 1118 of the Codified Ordinances, were presented. Mr. Dubelko stated that the conditional use permit is not really a permit, it is a permitted use-a use which is allowed when certain performance standards are demonstrated to the Planning & Design Commission and to Council. This was never a one year permit or a temporary permit. Section 1118.05, Conditional Use Permit Approval, reads that, after Council approves the use, it is an accepted use. The reason this facility is being addressed at the end of one year is because the facility agreed to testing on the one year anniversary of the completion of the installation. The committee voted unanimously to hold the ordinance in committee for further review and revision. • Ordinance 2006-161, an ordinance creating new Section 763.03 of Chapter 763 (Retail Business Regulations) of the Business Regulation Code in order to regulate the storage of snow/ice removal equipment on commercial, business retail, mixed use and multi-family properties. The pros and cons of the ordinance were discussed and the committee voted unanimously to hold the legislation in committee far further review. • Specific sections of Codified Ordinance Chapters 741 and 555 were discussed. In Chapter 741, Deliveries to Commercial Establishments, reviewed were Section 741.03, Prohibitions. This deals with the distance from a commercial establishment to a residential building in relation to hours of delivery. Section 741.04, Measurement, deals with the points of measurement with this ordinance. In Chapter 555, Noise Control, ~; Section 555.01 (z} Sound Level Meter, was discussed There are five questions relating to 12