12/17/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 17, 2009 ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present: Donna Sabo, Norman Althen, B7 Meder Absent: Robert Lipcsey, Dan Jarachovic Staff: Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley, Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, Clerk of Commissions Donna Rote REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES Mr. Althen moved, seconded by Mr. Meder to approve the November 19, 2009 minutes which was unanimously approved 3-0. Prior to addressing Mrs. Reed, Mrs. Sabo said as there were only 3 members present it would take a majority vote to approve the request and provided her the option to table the matter until a full quorum was present and Mrs. Reed chose to proceed. NEW BUSINESS Dorothv Reed; 28697 Elder Drive: Request consists of a non-conforming fence along the rear property line. The following variance is requested: A variance for the new 75 foot section of fencing along the rear property line which was installed with the finished side of the fence facing installer's property which is in violation of section 1369.03 (a) (1). "All posts and structiires members shall be on the side facing the installer's property". Mr. Reed the owner's son and Mrs. Reed the owner were sworn in. Mrs. Reed said the fence side which faces Olmsted Township is filled with debris which is why her fence was erected. The apartments were asked several times to clean the area but the requests fall upon deaf ears. So she had her grandson install the fence to match the appearance of the neighbors existing fences. Since the abutting property is outside North Olmsted, debris ridden and the closest structure is a garage she didn't think the city would object to the manor in which the fence was installed. She is on a fixed income which is why her grandson installed the fence and can not afford to install a solid fence along the other side of the fence. She doesn't dispute the fence was built against code, but the fence is not visible as the garage blocks the view of that side of the fence. Her practical difficulty is the added costs to change the fence and the fence doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights or property. Therefore she should be allowed to keep the fence as installed. Mr. Reed said there was not enough room to work along the baclc of the fence without having to clear debris from the area. The clerk advised that the applicant would need to e-mail or provide printouts of the photos being shown to each board member from Mr. Reed's camera for the record. Mr. O'Malley questioned how many photos were being shown and if they were numbered. Mr. Reed said that he would e-mail the photos to the clerk and 1