11/20/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e ? \-.. `i .. and partly down. 1VIr. Klesta questioned if there was cautian tape around the hole. Mr. Puzzitiello indicated that it was caved in and not all the way up because he was just there today. Mr. Althen questioned if she was looking for a competent builder to take over the project. Ms. Boger replieci yes. Mr. Puzzitiello questioned if she sub-contracted for the excavation and the masonry work or did they do it themselves as a company. IVIs. Boger indicated that they subcontracted. Mr. Klesta questioned if they could make sure that the hole gets protected and delay this for a week. Ms. Boger commented that she would appreciate that. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested that he would like to see the board should make a decision here tonight. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the City is proposing to revoke or suspend somebody's license. It is their livelihood and they certainly are entitled sufficient time to present evidence. He isn't sure about the timing on when the notice went out, when they received it or how much time they had, but even if the City believes that the evidence is overwhelming, they still have a right to defend their license and should be given time to talk to their attorney and present evidence. Mr. Althen questioned how much time is enough. Mr. Dubelko suggested that it is different from case to case, but if she received notice of this meeting yesterday, it is not enough time. There is certainly a contract issue between the landowner and the contractor, but that is a personnel matter. M. Conway motioned to table Hanne Boger with Rasmussen Homes until one week from today to give them enough time to prepare. M. Puzzitiello indicated that they would need to protect the property and the footers in the meantime. R. Klesta seconded the motion and was unanimously approved. Tabled 1 fl/20/01. Adrian Mastroguiseppe28386 Holly Dr. I'roposal consists of a fence. Wants to construct a fence on a common property line where neighbor already has existing fence. Violation of section 1369.03 (A-3). Chairman Puzzitiello called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Adrian Mastroguiseppe, the owner, came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Althen questioned if privacy was the only reason she wanted the wood fence back there. Ms. Mastroguiseppe indicated that when she first bought the property she had a home inspection and on the same day she had Great d,akes Fence come out to put a fence up because she has dogs. She had to have a lot of repairs done to the home, so she had them do one side of the fence in the back and then the wood fence on the other side of the neighbors. There is a 75 ft. gap that she left undone because she could not afford to finish it at the time, because the home needed many other repairs. This is way in the back and there is nothing growing in between. Her backyard abuts I-480. She spoke with her neighbor and he has no objection, so she had him put it in writing for the board. In the future he is looking to put up a wood fence around his property. So, if he takes his chain link down then she would have that gap there with her dogs and she would like to at least be able to finish her fence off. Mr. Puzzitiello questioned what the recammendations of the other board members were. Mr. Klesta indicated that this would be a double fence, which is against the City's codes right now. The board usually manages to-work around some happy medium with the resident in these cases. He questioned if the fence she already has done was a double fence. Ms. Mastroguiseppe replied yes, she could even move it a couple feet away for maintenance purposes. Mr. YJesta indicated that she would almost have to leave three feet. Ms. Mastroguiseppe indicated that it is all dirt and leaves in between, there is no grass. Mr. 1)