My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/22/1990 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1990
>
1990 Board of Building Code Appeals
>
03/22/1990 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:46 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 5:18:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1990
Board Name
Board of Building Code Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/22/1990
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
I CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS <br />? MINUTES-MARCH 22, 1990 <br />I. ROLL CALL: <br />Chairman Burk called the meeting to order at 7:43 p.m. <br />Present: J. Kazak, D. Spoerke, B. Schulz, and R. Burk <br />Absent; J. Konold <br />Also Present: Chief Inspector Sanker and Clerk of Commissions Oring. <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: <br />Mr. Burk corrected the minutes of February 22, 1990 to include as "Also Present: <br />Building Commissioner D. Conway and Clerk of Commission B. Oring". J. Kazak <br />moved to accept the minutes of February 22, 1990 as corrected, seconded by <br />D. Spoerke, and unanimously approved. <br />III. COMMUNICATIONS: <br />No items. <br />IVe HEARINGS: <br />1) Chand Construction Company,_property located at 6120 Pebblebrook Lane <br />Request for variance from the amendments to the One, Two, and Three <br />. Family Dwelling Code, Chapter 1305.05, G-1 & 2. Metal chimney is not <br />enclosed as stipulated. (Continued from meeting of February 22, 1990). <br />Chief Building Inspector Sanker explained that he had just become aware <br />of this violation and when he checked the house he discovered that the <br />location and height of the chimney did not conform to the building codes <br />either. He explained that the chimney was not 2 feet higher than the <br />portion of the building that was within 10 feet of it and was not 3 <br />feet above the point where the chimney passes through the roof. It is <br />his opinion that the chimney should be relocated or at least made higher.. - <br />Chairman Burk administered the oath to Mr. Heer, Chand Construction Com- <br />pany, who questioned why there were other houses in this developmentwhich also have chimneys which are not enclosed and why it should be <br />necessary to enclose a chimney when only 1 or 2 feet are visible. He is <br />also concerned that moving the chimney would be impossible since it <br />is located between the house and the garage. Mr. Sanker explained that <br />this building code is to prevent down drafts and offered to meet with <br />Mr. Heer at the house to determine if the chimney can be relocated. If <br />it is impossible to move it, Mr. Heer will have to make it higher and <br />possibly install a Belmont cap on it to prevent the down drafts; and, if <br />it must be higher, it should be enclosed as stipulated in the code. Mr. Sanker further explained that some of the other builders have orders <br />to enclose their chimneys, but he does not know if they have completed <br />the work. Mr. Heer stated that he did not usually put this type of <br />chimney on his houses and he would do whatever was possible-to comply <br />with the code. Mr. Schulz pointed out that these codes have been in - <br />force for twenty years and his heating contractor should have known them <br />and should be responsible.for relocating the chimney.. Mr. Heer believed <br />??w.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.