Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF NOlt'TH OY.IVISTlEEI) <br />BOAI2D OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS <br />IN COUNCIL CHAMBE1tS <br />JUNE 15, 2006 <br />MINUTES <br />1. ROLL CALL: <br />PRESENT: Members; P. Engoglia, D. Sabo, M. ConwTay and N. Althen. <br />ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Building Commissioner D. <br />Conwa.y and Clerk of Corvmissions D. itote <br />ABSENT: Members; R. Puzzitiello & N. Althen <br />IY. REVIEW AND CORREC1'ION OF MINUTES: <br />M. Conway moved to approve the Board of Building Code Appeals minutes dated May 18, <br />2006 as written. D. Sabo seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. <br />Buildiaig Commissianer Conway advised everyone present that due to only having 3 board <br />members present there would need to be a unanimaus vote to approve or deny any requests. <br />T'herefore each applieant needed to chose whether or not they whish to be postponed or to <br />proceed with their request. Both applicants voiced they whished to proceed with their <br />requests. <br />U. OLD $USINESS: <br />N. NEW BUSINESS: <br />2. Brvan & Kathleen Pesta; 26845 Chanel Hill: (WM # 1) <br />Proposal consists of erecting a boazd on board fence along a properry line where an existing <br />chainlink fence already exists. The following variance is requested: <br />1. A variance to erect a board on board fenee parallel to an existing chainlink fence located <br />along rear neighbors property line, whieh is in violation of section (1369.03 (A)(3)). <br />Mr. Pesta submitted a written summery as to why he was requesting his fence. He explained <br />that the existing chainlink fence needed to be replaced and he wanted to replace it with a 6- <br />foot board on board privacy fence. Both he and his reaz neighbor have dogs and he would <br />like the privacy fence to help cut dodvn on the am4unt of bazlcing taking place beiween the <br />two dogs. Due to the existing CEI easement between his and his rear neighbor's fences he <br />can not replace the neighbor's chainlink nor encroach onto the7 CEI easement area. He <br />reviewed that both his and his neighbors fences were each 5-feet into their own property so <br />there would be plenty of room to maintain the a.rea between the fences. He would construct a <br />gate in the back of the fence so he can maintain his 5-foot area. Board members had no <br />objections to the variance request as each parcel owner had enough room to maintain their <br />own yards. <br />M. CoDway moved to approve Bryan & Kathleen Pesta of 26845 Chapel ffill their <br />request, which consists of erecting a board on boarcl fence along a property line where <br />an existing chainlink fence already exists andl the follmwing varBance is granted: 1. A <br />variance to erect a board on lbmard fence parallel to an existing chainlink fence Iocated <br />almmg rear neighbors property line, which is in violation of section (1369.03 (A)(3)). D. <br />5abo seconded the pnotion, wbich was unamimously approvedl.