05/17/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAY 17, 2007 MINUTES 1. ROLL CALL: Prior to the start of the meeting Mr. O'Malley swore in new board member B.J. Meder. Acting Chair N. Althen called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm. PRESENT: Members; D. Sabo, M. Conway, N. Althen, and B. Meder AL.SO PRESENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Assistant Building Commissioner R. Mathews and D. Rote Clerk of Commissions. ABSENT: Member R. Lipcsey Board members felt that the matter of chair and vice chair should be addressed when there is a full board present. H. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: M. Conway moved to approve the Board of Building Code Appeals minutes dated November 16, 2006 as written with starting time corrected. N. Althen seconded, roll call on the motion; D. Sabo, M. Conway, N. Althen "yes" and B. Meder abstained. II. OLD SUSINESS: IV. NEW BUSINESS: James Smith; 5534 Barton Road: (WRD # 3) Proposal consists of erecting a privacy fence. The following variance is requested: A variance to install a 61 foot section of privacy fence along neighbors existing 4-foot high fence, which is in violation of section (1369.03 (a 3)). Mr. Smith the owner came forward to address the board. Mr. Althen asked if the diagram showed a 3 or 7 foot distance from the existing fence. Mr. Smith said he would leave what ever distance the board wanted between the fences. The fence is needed as he has two rottweiler's and the existing 4 foot high fence is poorly constructed gaps/wholes between the slats. The fence is owned by the condominiums and he has spoken to their maintenance workers about the openings but they have done nothing to fix it. The condo owners walk their dogs and let their children/grandchildren play along the fence and stick their hands through the openings to pet the dogs which upset them. He is concerned for the safety of the condo owners and other dogs in the area. He was issued a permit for the board on board fences along both sideyard lines but the existing 4 foot fence is in sufficient. Mr. Althen requested a gate be installed so the area between the fences could be maintained and asked if the sideyard fences would end in line with the rear fence line. Mr. Smith said he would end the rear fence line at the back end of his shed and place a gate wide enough to take is riding mower through, but he was within his rights to keep the existing sections of fence which are already in place. Mr. Mathews said a 5 foot distance would give the applicant ample distance which could be maintained as long as a gate was installed. Mr. Althen asked if the applicant would have to remove sections of the sideline fencing to ensure utility worlcers have access. Mr. Smith suggested he placed both sideline fences inward 1-foot onto his own property to code and would prefer not to remove any existing fencing. Board inembers felt that the rear fence should not be any further baclc than the rear wall of the existing