05/18/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLIVISTED "TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE" BOARD OF BUII.DING CODE A.PPEALS May 18, 2000 7:30 P.M. IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM OF THE COUNCIL CHANIBERS I. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman R. Puzzitiello and Board Members R. Klesta, D. Spoerke, and P. Engoglia. ALSO PRESENT: Asst. Building Commissioner T. Rymarczyk and Asst. Clerk of Commissions K. Fallon. II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF NIINUTES: The minutes of March 16, 2000 Board of Building Codes of appeals meeting have been submitted for approval. R. Puzzitiello motioned to approve the minutes of March 16, 2000 as written. The motion was seconded by P. Engoglia and unanimously approved. III. BUII.,DING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: Steve and Marv Wolf27132 Butternut Ridge Rd. The proposal consists of erecting interior fencing. Request a variance to erect 111-foot fence on interior of property in addition to fencing at or along the perimeter of lot. Interior fence does not enclose a pool or a garden (code prohibits this installation) section 1369.01(a). Chairman Puzzitiello called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Steve & Mary Wolf and a neighbor Edward Liptak.came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Puzzitiello reviewed two letters that had been received from other neighbors regarding the proposal. Mr. Barker, Board Member of the Landmarks Commission, came forward and reviewed that this proposal came before the Landmarks Commission and they had no objections to the fences. Mr. Klesta reviewed that there were no objections, but there was a stipulation that there would be shrubbery placed in front of the fence. Mr. Barker indicated that was correct. Mr. Liptak indicated that he has no problem with the fences. Mr. Engoglia commented on the letter-from Laura Parry and Robert Parry, the neighbors to the west of Mr. & Mrs. Wolf's property. He .indicated that they have no objection to the fence, but they do have an objection to put another fence to create a"dog run." Mr. Wolf reviewed the proposal. He indicated he could obtain a permit of the one fence, it is the secondary fence that is the problem. Mr. Wolf explained that he wants to open up his backyard to the dogs while still closing off the driveway. Mr. Engoglia indicated he has no problem with the initial fence, but he questioned putting a second fence along the first fence. Mr. Wolf indicated that what the second fence would allow is access to the rear yard from the side yard. Mr. Engoglia indicated there is still access to the rear yard, so why put up a double fence to get access. Mr. Wolf indicated that he would have to walk his dogs out to the rear yard with a leash without a double fence. Mr. Engoglia