05/19/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS COUNCIL CHAMBERS THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005 MINUTES -5:30 PM 1. ROLL CALL: Chairman Puzzitiello called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: R. Puzzitiello, N. Althen, M. Conway, D. Sabo ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Building Commissioner T. Rymarczyk, Planning Secretary L. McNabb ABSENT: P. Engoglia II. REVIEW A1VD CORRECTION OF MINUTES: M. Conway moved to approve the minutes of December 16, 2004 as written. D. Sabo seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. III. SIGNS IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS Marissa Famiano, 191 Vista Circle, WRD 4 Code requires four inches as shown in figure 307.2. A 3.75 inch variance for a toilet that is too close to vanity, code requires four inches, applicant shows 1/4 inch, which is in violation of building code section 405.3.1. The applicant said this vanity is located in the guest bathroom. Asst. Building Commissioner Rymarczyk clarified this statement and said it is the main bathroom in the house. The actual living space of the condo is on the second floor. The Farrow Group, a fire restoration company is the contractor who installed the new vanity. They did apply for a building permit. Ms. Sabo inquired if the contractor was aware of the size requirements. Mr. Conway advised the applicant that Code requires that there must be a minimum of four inches between the cabinet and the toilet to access for cleaning purposes. He told the applicant they could eliminate any violation if they move the toilet closer to the bathtub. The applicant said they cannot do that because it is butted up against the wall. Ms. Sabo asked the applicant how they will access the cabinet for cleaning. The applicant said there is a generous space of 19 '/4" between the toilet and the bathtub and they could access it from that side. The amount of space from the vanity to the center of the toilet is 11 %2". The applicant informed the'Board that the contractor replaced the vanity with the same size that there previously. She further said the old one had a formica top that extended over the toilet. Ms. Sabo said that the top extension is not the issue and that would make no difference. T. Rymarczyk asked if the size of the old vanity was 32". T. Rymarczyk said it was hearsay that the contractor was going to install a 32" vanity but the applicant asked them to install a 36" vanity instead. Ms. Famiano said she did not order a 36" vanity and was unsure why the contractor installed a larger one. The applicant said they did not realize they violated any code requirements until the City sent them a letter informing them of the violation.