[ back ]
Violations surface with Station 43 project
Violations surface with Station 43 project
By SUE REID
The Solon planning commission tabled a request last week from Station 43 restaurant after questions arose over its full occupancy permit.
Station 43 owner Charles J. Randazzo had applied for screening certain mechanical equipment that had been installed along the rear elevation of the restaurant at 39910 Aurora Road (Route 43). In addition, he requested a variance in order not to screen certain mechanical equipment that had been installed on the roof and along the east-side elevation of the building.
But that equipment was installed without screening and without city approvals, Planning Director Robert S. Frankland said. It also is in violation of the restaurant's building permit, he said.
A signed agreement was attached to the building permit, which was issued last December, Mr. Frankland said, verifying that no equipment would be installed without required city approvals and screening. He said a site inspection conducted Feb. 20 revealed that all mechanical equipment subsequently was installed without screening and without city approval.
The restaurant occupied the new portion of the building, which is less than 1,000 square feet, in March.
"How is it that we are open?" Michael Ruth, part owner of the restaurant, asked the planning commission.
"This discussion is getting more and more incredible as it goes on," commission member Roger C. Newberry said.
Mr. Frankland said that, prior to the commission meeting, he was asked by Councilman and commission member Lon D. Stolarsky to verify that an occupancy permit had been granted for the restaurant to move into the newly constructed section of the building. "We checked with the building department, and that was not the case," he said. "It was a technicality."
Station 43 did not receive a full occupancy permit, Mr. Frankland said. "They moved in and opened in the new addition without city approvals. The city wasn't aware of it." It was the same situation as the equipment that was installed, he said.
As a result, Mr. Frankland said, the restaurant was authorized a temporary occupancy permit which is valid until June 30. They have until that time to correct all outstanding violations on the property, otherwise the permit expires.
"There was no health and safety issues at stake, but outstanding minor building issues, planning issues and engineering issues," Mr. Frankland said. "In those types of circumstances, they would issue a temporary occupancy permit."
What brought it all to light was that, back in 2007, the restaurant was approved for an addition, Mr. Frankland said. The planning commission and council approved the site plan and building elevations. The approved elevation plans did not designate any exterior mechanical equipment, he said. However, the construction drawings that were subsequently submitted to the city indicated that both roof mounted and ground mounted mechanical equipment would be located along the rear elevation of the building.
"As these plans deviated substantially from those that were approved by the planning commission and City Council," and as city code prohibits exterior mechanical equipment from being visible from any street or adjacent property, building permits for the submitted drawings were denied, Mr. Frankland said.
A meeting was held last October in which Mr. Randazzo requested authorization to construct the building in accordance with the original city approved elevations.
At that time, Mr. Frankland said, it was agreed that a building permit would be issued on the specific condition that no exterior mechanical equipment would be installed on site until and unless acceptable equipment screening plan was submitted to the planning commission and city council for approval.
Mr. Frankland said the restaurant faces potential fines through the building department for the violations, which would double the cost of the building permits.
"Obviously, we can't have people violating the terms of their building or occupancy permits without accessing penalties," Mr. Frankland said.
Lisa Randazzo, part owner of the restaurant, said it was Mr. Frankland who suggested that the equipment be painted.
Mr. Frankland said that was the only solution left. "They installed the equipment without the normal reviews," he said. "The only thing I can see now is that, since it's there, the only thing you can do is paint it, he said.
"The planing commission is asking for a more substantial solution, and I don't know what that solution would be," Mr. Frankland said. He was to meet with the restaurant owners to discuss this the week following the meeting.
"We're trying to do nothing but the right thing," Mr. Ruth said.
"Let's move forward" and try to come up with a way to screen the mechanical equipment, commission member William M. Mazur said.
[ back ]
