My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/16/2002 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2002
>
2002 Board of Building Code Appeals
>
05/16/2002 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:06 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 6:06:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2002
Board Name
Board of Building Code Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/16/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
1 J <br />two lot side fences without a permit, but received a permit for the rear fence section. Mr. <br />Puzzitiello questioned the date the rear neighbors received the building permit. Mr. Rymarczyk <br />indicated that the rear neighbors permit was received after the applicant had received his permit. <br />Mr. Puzzitiello commented that he did not feel the Building Department handled the situation <br />correctly. Mr. Conway voiced that he agreed with Mr. Puzzitiello. Mr. Puzzitiello indicated <br />that the board was in an awkward situation and felt that the matter should be tabled until the <br />survey was completed. Mr. Conway voiced that he was concerned that the applicant followed <br />the laws by obtaining a permit then a neighbor does something illegal and gets a permit after the <br />fact. This places the applicant in the situation he is in now before this board. Mr. Klesta felt <br />that the board should wait until the survey is completed before rendering a decision. Mrs. <br />Wright indicated that they just wanted to erect a fence, which is uniformed to the other rear <br />fences in the neighborhood. Mr. Klesta suggested tabling the issue until the survey is complete. <br />The survey will determine who in fact owns the fence, which will help the board render an <br />opinion. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the boards duty is to relate to the variance that is being <br />requested which is whether or not the applicant should be allowed to have a fence back to black <br />to another fence. The issues being discussed currently as to who is right and who is wrong or if <br />a permit should have or should not have been issued is beyond this boards jurisdiction. The <br />board in an effort to try to find a resolution, which will accommodate everyone concerned, is <br />admirable and tabling this until the survey is complete could help. Mr. Engoglia indicated that <br />if the applicant agreed to table his issue until next month when the results of the survey are <br />available it would help the board in rendering a decision. He further suggested that Mr. & Mrs. <br />Wright speak to the owners of the white picket fence once the survey is complete as they might <br />be able to work it out between themselves before the next meeting. <br />R. Klesta motioned to table John & Martha Wright of 4327 Coe Ave. their request for a <br />variance to erect a fence along a commo <br />Which is in violation of section, (1369.03 <br />and unanimously approved. Tabled <br />V. ADJOURNMENT: <br />n property line on which there is an existing fence. <br />(a-3) ). The motion was seconded by R. Puzzitiello <br />R. Klesta motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by P. <br />Engoglia and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.