My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/20/2010 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2010
>
2010 Board of Building Code Appeals
>
05/20/2010 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:47:24 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 7:01:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2010
Board Name
Board of Building Code Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/20/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />MIliTUTES FOR MAY 20, 2010 <br />ROLL CALL <br />The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. <br />Present: Donna Sabo, Norman Althen, Dan Jarachovic <br />Absent: Robert Lipcsey, BJ Meder <br />Staff: Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley, Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, <br />Clerlc of Commissions Donna Rote <br />REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES <br />Mr. Jarachovic moved, seconded by Mr. Althen to approve the December 17, 2009 minutes <br />which was approved 3-0. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />Antliony & Rosemarv Hurst; 2845 Walter Road: <br />Request consists of installing a HVAC condensing unit, which was tabled until June 17, 2010. <br />Gail Pirtle; 5096 Whitethorn Ave: <br />Request consists of installing a HVAC condensing unit, which was tabled until June 17, 2010. <br />Christopher & Julie Pencal{; 4538 Kew Drive: <br />Request consists of a non-conforming fence along the rear property line. The request is for a <br />variance for a 72-foot section of fencing along the rear property line where a fence is already <br />installed along a property line, an additional fence will not be permitted; Section 1369.03(a)(3). <br />Mrs. Rodriguez, the applicant's daughter, appeared to represent her parents. Mr. O'Malley <br />advised the board that she could not represent her parents as she did not live in their home nor <br />was she a resident of the city. However the board's rules provide the board the option of <br />addressing the case without the owner's presence. Mrs. Kappus, a neighbor, aslced what was <br />being requested as there were already three fences around the applicant's property. Mr. Mitchell <br />explained the site plan and the applicant's request. Mrs. Kappus said she was concerned that <br />once the fence was installed the area would not be maintained and would be a hang out for <br />neighboring lcids. Mr. Mitchell said the owner was providing two gates which would allow <br />access to the area for maintenance. Mr. Kappus aslced if the easement area was required to <br />remain open or could the area be closed. Mr. Mitchell said both properties have 4-foot CEI <br />easements which must reinain open, plus an additional 1-foot is required for installing the fence <br />and posts. Mr. Jarachovic raised the safety issues and Mrs. Rodriguez explained that her parents <br />watch her child and the neighbor's dog gets out and they are concerned. Mrs. Kappus said she <br />could attest to the dog getting out as she has called the police on the dog a few times. Mrs. Sabo <br />questioned the gate's location and Mrs. Rodriguez said there would be a 4-foot wide gate along <br />the rear property line as well as one along the side of the home.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.