My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/21/2011 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2011
>
2011 Board of Building Code Appeals
>
04/21/2011 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:47:32 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 7:31:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2011
Board Name
Board of Building Code Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/21/2011
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
BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEAI.S <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />MINLTTES FOR APRIL 21, 2011 <br />ROLL CALL <br />Chair Sabo called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. <br />Present: Donna Sabo, Julianne Nader, BJ Meder <br />Absent: Robert Lipcsey, Dan Jarachovic <br />Staff: Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley, Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, <br />Clerk of Commissions Donna Rote <br />REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINU7CES <br />Ms. Nader moved, seconded by Mr. Meder, to approve the Board of Building Code Appeals <br />minutes of March 17, 2011, which failed 2-0 as Mr. Meder abstained. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />Mark Weston; 4403 West Ranchview <br />Proposal consists of installing fencing where a fence is already installed. The following variance <br />is requested: A variance to install an 85 foot section of fence along rear property line where a <br />fence already exists, section 1369.03(a)(3). <br />Mathew McMillen of Budget Fencing Company was sworn in. Mr. McMillen said the rear <br />neighbor has an existing fence which they do not wish to remove. The fence area involved two <br />properties. The fence was installed in the 70's and his clients fence will be installed 5 feet <br />inward from the existing fence. Mr. Mitchell said clarification was needed as it was not clear if <br />the existing fence is on the applicant's property line or the neighbors. If it is the neighbor's <br />fence and it is on the property line then he would have to go onto Mr. Weston's property to <br />maintain the fence. Mr. McMillen said that the fence was in very poor condition and has not <br />been maintained, which is why his client wanted to replace it and neither neighbor wants it <br />removed hence the variance to install the fence 5 feet inward from his property line. <br />Mr. O'Malley aslced if the property owner was present as the contractor could not represent the <br />homeowner. Under the board's rules they could proceed without the owner being present <br />however they are not compelled to malce a ruling. Mr. Meder asked if the building department <br />had to wait until a complaint is filed by a neighbor as it is quite clear seeing the fence that it is in <br />very poor condition, in fact it is in major disrepair. Mr. Mitchell said the applicant would have <br />to give consent for the neighbors to be on his property to repair their fence. Once that is done he <br />can issue the violations for the fences to be repaired or replaced. Once an owner is cited they <br />have 30 days in which to correct the violation. Mrs. Sabo asked how the members would lilce to <br />proceed. All members felt the issue should be tabled until the owner had an opportunity to <br />appear and the building department conducts a property maintenance inspection.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.