10/21/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?.-^ _ " . i BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 21, 2010 ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present: Donna Sabo, Norman Althen, BJ Meder, Dan Jarachovic Absent: Robert Lipcsey Staff: Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, Clerk of Commissions Donna Rote REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES Mr. Meder moved, seconded by Mr. Althen, to approve the Board of Building Code Appeals minutes of August 12, 2010, which was approved 4-0. OLD BUSINESS Brittnay Trapp; 4097 Shelley Drive: Proposal consists of fence installation. Request consists of a variance for a 65-foot section of fence to be installed along rear property line; applicant shows fencing along a property line where neighbor's fencing already exists, code does not permit, Section 1369.03(a)(3). Mrs. Trapp said her contractor pulled the permit and talked to the neighbor about removing their split rail fence. The rear neighbor removed the split rails when the Trapp's fence was being constructed but three weeks after the fence was installed they put the split rail fence baclc. Mr. Jarachovic asked if there was a letter from the neighbors stating they would remove the split rail and Mrs. Trapp said she only spoke to the neighbor to let them know the fence company would be contacting them. Any conversation regarding removing the split rail fence was between the contractor and the neighbor. Mr. Meder asked if there was a gate along the back and Mrs. Trapp said there was a gate in the front and along the back corner of the fence so the area could be maintained. Mrs. Sabo asked the distance between the two fences; Mr. Trapp believed 7 feet. Mr. Mitchell said the building department believed that the fence was to be removed and the rails were out when the fence was installed but when the final inspection was completed the rails were back in place. Mrs. Sabo asked if the building department required proof that an existing fence is being removed. Mr. Mitchell said no. He noted that there is a utility easement between the two homes which requires a 5 foot section remain outside the fence on both properties. Mrs. Sabo questioned when the fence was installed and Mrs. Trapp said it was installed early June. Mr. Meder asked if there had been any thought given to altering the definition of a split rail fence as it is a decorative structure and does not keep anything in or out of a yard. Mr. Meder asked who would be maintaining the space between the fences and Mr. Trapp said he would maintain the area. The contractor said the neighbors reinstalled the split rail because they received a new puppy. Mr. Althen asked if the matter could be tabled to have the contractor and neighbor present to give testimony. Mr. O'Malley said it was within the board's right to table the matter for additional information. Mr. Mitchell said that the fence company was reputable and they had