08/21/2003 Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CTTY OF NORTH OLMSTED "TOGE'I'HER WE CAN 1VIAKE A DIFFERENCE'° BOAlaD OF BUII.DING CODE APPEALS 10'IINUTES - AUGUST 21, 2003 IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Chairman Puzzitiello called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. PRESENT: R. Puzzitiello, N. Althen, M. Conway, R. Klesta, and P. Engoglia ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Building Commissioner T. Rymarczyk, and Assistant Clerk of Commissions A. Kilbane II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: The Board of Building Code Appeals minutes for June 26, 2003 have been submitted for approval. M. Conway made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by P. Engoglia and unanimously approved. III. OLD BUSINESS: IV. NEW BUSINESS: 1. William & Susan Minnich, 3474 West 231St Street, WRD2 A variance for an adjacent board fence 9 inches west of the property line. (1369.03 (a) (3)) General requirements for fences: Where a neighbor has already installed a fence along a property line, an additional fence will not be permitted. Chairman Puzzitiello called all interested parties forward. Mr. William Minnich came forward to address the board and indicated he and his wife own the property in question. They purchased the property for their daughter. They wanted a house with a yard since their daughter has two large dogs. He said before buying the home, they talked to neighbors on the north and told them they would like to enclose the yard. They also talked to the neighbor on the south once their daughter moved in. The neighbors had no problem with their plan. Mr. Minnich said there is a chain link fence down the north and south end of the property. He said on the west, there is a board fence but it is set back from the property line. There is a nine-inch gap between the property line and the board fence. He.said since his daughter has moved in they have encountered teenagers cutting through the yard, which is dangerous with the dogs and it is not something that should be done anyway. He said they have no solution other than to enclose the backyard. Their request is to put in a chain link fence, which is similar to the fence on both sides, across the back and along the property line or an inch or two away from it. 1VIr. Klesta said he believes a neighbor to the west of the property is present tonight. Mr. Wiebusch stepped forward to address the board. Mr. Klesta asked Mr. Wiebusch if he had obtained a permit for the fence installed on his property. Mr. Wiebusch indicated he did get a permit. Mr. Klesta asked for confirmation that Mr. Wiebusch does not approve of a gate at both ends of the property. Mr. Wiebusch replied he is not certain what the applicant is proposing because there was never a notification about the meeting mailed to him. He learned about the meeting when he dropped off a letter to Mr. Puzzitiello at the Office of Commissions (letter attached). He indicated there has been a lack of communication. He said this all started several weeks ago when the applicant attempted to construct a fence that went onto his property line. He does not have a problem with dogs or what the applicant is saying about enclosing them but he does not want to jeopardize the future sale of his property because there is an encroachment onto his property with the fence they have already attempted to put up once. He asked them nicely to wait and go through it so they can work out something to their mutual satisfaction. He is attempting to be a good neighbor but he feels since they are asking to come on to his property, the ball is really in their court to come over to him and inform him of their plans. He said he has an issue with a chain link fence running the entire width of the yard because he needs to get in to maintain his fence. Mr. Klesta said to even consider putting in a chain link fence all the way along the back side of that property is null and void. It would not be acceptable to this board or any other board. It is against the ordinance and they cannot accept any double fences. He pointed out that Mr. Wiebusch would still have access to the back side of his fence but with the nine inches to a foot that he is off the property line, technically, he would be encroaching on the neighbor's property to maintain his fence. He said he would