Laserfiche WebLink
<br />`.. <br />Engoglia suggested that the board wishes he wouldn't have done it because it is not <br />approved. Mr. Dittebrand commented that he bought it at the Home Depot right <br />here in North Olmsted. When he came to get a permit he told them he had that <br />fence up as a temporary fence. There was nothing said at that time, but he isn't sure <br />if anyone came out at that time to look at it. <br />P. Engoglia motioned approve James Dittebrand of 6122 Stearns Rd. to allow the <br />split rail fence with the (unapproved) wire. The motion was seconded by N. Althen. <br />Roll call on the motion: R. Klesta, "no"; N. Althen, P. Engoglia, M. Conway, and R. <br />Puzzitiello, "yes". Motion passed. <br />James Trethewev; 27587 Edgepark Dr. <br />Proposal consists of a fence. Fence constructed with boards on inside-structural <br />members outside, section (1369.03 (1)). <br />Chairman Puzzitiello called all interested parties forward to review the request. The <br />homeowner, James Trethewey, was present to review the request. Mr. Trethewey <br />indicated that this fence is replacing a fence that had been in existence for 23 years. <br />This fence was replaced in sections. In 2000, a storm blew the west side of the fence <br />over and he filed an insurance claim to have it fixed. His friend helped him do the <br />fence work. He called the City to find out if a permit was needed. They had told <br />him it was not necessary to get a permit to replace a portion of a fence. Therefore, <br />they went ahead and replaced the west section of the fence. He had to fix the east <br />side of the fence a couple of times this summer. These fences are very expensive. <br />This fence cost about $8,000. For safety purposes they replaced the whole east side <br />as well. They do have a swimming pool in the backyard, that is why he had the <br />fence in the first place. While they were replacing the east side, they decided to go <br />ahead and fix the back section also. They still haven't replaced the front section <br />where the gate is, but they do plan on doing that. Both neighbors on each side of the <br />house have given their consent to the fence being the way it is. Given these <br />circumstances, he felt it was worth coming here and trying to get the board to allow <br />this to stay. Mr. Althen questioned if the old fence was inside out also. Mr. <br />Trethewey replied yes, it is exactly the way it was. Mr. Conway indicated that the <br />board has a dilemma because just recently they made someone turn his fence around <br />which was just like this situation. Mr. Klesta commented that anytime a renovation <br />or construction is done on any house it needs to comply to up to date codes. No <br />matter what it is, you have to up date to the codes of that day.' Once you start <br />opening the door to letting people build their fences with the ugly side out, then <br />what is to stop the next person. Mr. Conway indicated that the neighbors right now <br />might be fine with it, but what about the next neighbors. Mr. Trethewey suggested <br />that his circumstances should allow for this. Mr. Engoglia questioned if the posts <br />were on his property. Mr. Trethewey responded yes. Mr. Engoglia questioned what <br />type of nails they used. Mr. Trethewey replied that they used a lot of ring shank <br />nails. Mr. Conway suggested the board not make a motion at this meeting and the <br />members all go-out together to look at this. Mr. Engoglia questioned if they could <br />pull a section off to see how troublesome it would be. Mr. Trethewey replied that <br />they could do that. Mr. Klesta questioned if the panels are in eight foot sections. <br />Mr. Trethewey replied yes. There was discussion about a chain link fence that abuts <br />2