My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/18/2002 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2002
>
2002 Board of Building Code Appeals
>
04/18/2002 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:06 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 6:06:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2002
Board Name
Board of Building Code Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/18/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
, ,V ` w <br />would like to place the fence on the property line. Mr. Klesta indicated that he agreed <br />that the existing fence was decorative only as indicated by the Law Director. Mr. <br />Althen indicated that he would like to make sure enough space is between the two <br />fences so the grass could be maintained. Mrs. Gatsos suggested that the split rail was <br />about 6 inches in from tlieir property line. Mr. Klesta questioned what was allowed. by <br />code on the placement of the fence. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that. the owner. could <br />place the fenca on the property line as long as the base or foundation of the fence is on <br />the owners' properiy. Mr. Althen indicated that he visited the site and the fence does <br />indeed look rotted however, he would Iike to make sure there is room to maintain the <br />area. <br />N. Althen motioned to grant Denise & George Gatsos of 5268 Evergreen Drive their <br />request, which consists of erecting a fence. This is in violation of: <br />A). Erecting a fence along side of an lI-foot section of split rail fence along neighbors <br />side Iot line. The fence is to be 6 inches in away from appiicant's property line along <br />the entire length of the property. This is in violation of section (1369.03) (a) 3 of the <br />building code. The motion was seconded hy R. Klesta and unanimously approved. <br />V. ADJOURNMENT: <br />R. Puzzitiello motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by R. Klesta <br />and unanimously approved. Ivleeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. <br />C <br />1)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.