My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/20/2000 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2000
>
2000 Board of Building Code Appeals
>
07/20/2000 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:25 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 4:32:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2000
Board Name
Board of Building Code Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
7/20/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
. ,, <br />. ? . <br />discuss the water issue and they were not given the same opportunity to defend <br />themselves. No further comments were made. <br />P. Engoglia motioned to approve Vladimir Fulmas of 26804 Chapel Hill Drive: <br />his variance to use the 30 inch ground master post system to anchor 4 foot <br />fence posts, (code requires cement applicant would like to use Ground Master <br />Post System). This is in violation of section (1.369.04 (a) (b) ). This is also <br />with the understanding that the Building Department can visit the site to <br />reexamine the anchoring of the fence and if not up to standards they can have, <br />it brought back to this board. Furthermore the fence must be approved by the <br />engineering department and placed in solid ground not flower beds. The <br />motion was seconded by, R. Klesta and unanimously approved. Variance <br />Granted. <br />Lelia A Myers- 4525 Gladland Ave. <br />A variance to place a second fence along the north side of the applicants <br />property, (code does not allow additional fence if there is existing fence on <br />property line). Which is in violation of section 1369.03 (a) (3). <br />Mr. Puzzitiello called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mrs. <br />Myers came forward and indicated that she would like the fence for privacy. <br />Mr. Puzzitiello questioned why would she want two fenees on the same side of <br />the property. Mrs. Myers indicated that she would like to have -privacy and <br />submitted a letter from her neighbor stating she did not mind the fence going in <br />place. Mr. Conway indicated that if there are two fences erected side by side <br />they can not be maintained. Mr. Engoglia questioned if Mrs. Myers had <br />discussed removing the neighbor's fence. He suggested offering to remove the <br />fence for the neighbor. The other board members each agreed with the <br />chairman about removing the fence for the neighbor. 1VIr. Conway suggested <br />that maybe if the neighbor did not incur any cost she would allow her fence to <br />be removed. Mrs. Myers indicated that she had not discussed that with her <br />neighbor. Mr. Puzzitiello commented that if the fence was removed Mrs. <br />Myers would not need to return next month. He suggested that she use the <br />minutes to help her explain to the neighbor that the board would like the fence <br />removed. Mrs. Myers questioned what would happen if the neighbor did not <br />want ttie fence removed. Mr. puzzitiello indicated that she would then have to <br />return to the next meeting which would be August 17, 2000. <br />P. Engoglia motioned to table Lelia A. Myers of 4525 Gladland Ave. until the <br />next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by, M. Conway <br />and unanimously approved. Tabled <br />IV. COMMUNICATIONS: <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.