|
6,
<br />Mr. Kobric - 4$22 Clague Rd.
<br />I have lived in North Olmsted for the past ten years., and to ny
<br />knowledge? as I gassed the place during that ti.me, I donlt seem to have noticed any
<br />t'Otivity of any kind of businPss.I think ws should probably get more facts,
<br />inasmuch as this is particularly important -- both sides`should get more
<br />facts. I am not satisfied with their proof any more than they are with vurs,?
<br />W: ' We will continue it:one wee?s.
<br />Mr• Limpert: I have assura.nce from r:Ty immediate neighbors that they have no
<br />objection to the use:of:`that building for that purpose.
<br />.
<br />ti?: We are not trying to inflict a: hardship on you any more thari we are on the
<br />other people. Actual.l,y., there is yourself and your tenants involved - and there
<br />are also other residents of:-North;Olmsted. If it is disclosed that yvu have not
<br />used these premises for retail business for_a period of one year, you lose the
<br />right to operate a retail _business: there, ' and,,frankly ,my personal.opinion is
<br />that neither side;has been°certain about`their,evidence., I,think that in fairnesa
<br />t0 Your side, you probably,had more'faets:to present here for consideration than
<br />the other side, but I think that if you would make the effort to get more
<br />coherent and chronological°illustrations and present them:next week, the Council
<br />'401ild have abetter opportunity to come to a conclusion, as they are going to
<br />be fair. The way, it is now, it r,rould be rather difficu7.t in fairness to the
<br />other people in your favor, and vice versa: I think the Council feels they should
<br />have more facts.. : . ; . . , , . _
<br />, .
<br />... _... _ .._ . . , ..,
<br />. .. . .. ? ., • ; . ? . ; .
<br />... ,.' ????# , ,.?,. ,.. .. .
<br />Baumgardner: •Here's another'rsatter that fenters into it. It,is a fact that part
<br />°f thi.s time may have been sgent manufacturirg, lie have no zoning out here whatsoever
<br />°n manufacture; so if part of that'time was'spent on manufacturing, that,would
<br />enter into the case also..' °
<br />'. : ; , ;.. , ' ? , •_ .
<br />Mr. WinSper read that part?of the`Zoning.Ordinance'concerning retail business.,
<br />$a?gardner: If there was a period of a year that it was used as a manufacturing
<br />plant, it Yould be nvn-conforming, because we do not have a manufacturing area
<br />in this town.
<br />w' But Ed, this would be our fault for letting'them do.that - but if there
<br />wag some time that he was not using it for a business of any kind -just storing
<br />sttlff in there.- :I don't think this,is a'business, just storing stuff. °-
<br />. , r ?ardner:. If there was ma.nufa
<br />$a a cturingLLin there when they shovld not have
<br />°Aerated as a man:ifacturing plant., that isn?t this Council's: fault.
<br />,. . :, ., 11
<br />11 - ;..,. ., ?., . w? I think weshould, get more,evidence. It?s.all:on?one side.
<br />att : Would th e
<br />Council feel better about this to pass it for a week so as to
<br />more facts so that we can some to a conclusion.
<br />n Matter - ` Tenant of.Glenn Limpert.
<br />?f this.must be carried over another: week, are we goino to - be able to£ work out.°f the shop for a period' of a week, or not. : As a temporary, measure, could we,:
<br />at least be able to pick:up materials,from the place. ;
<br />?J?• : . : '. , ? . . : ,, ,
<br />DO you have all.your material stored in there? _ ., Yes, at:the present time. . .. _ , ., ,
<br />OJol Does Council see any objection to removing material fmm there?
|