Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Correspondence 1982-12-6 , ," .'t". ;" ~.^ < "~~ -' . ~~~@~m[ill@)01J~ " '0 '. ., . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD J December 6, 1982 FROM: SUBJECT: Steven C. Burkett, City Manager Dan Brown, Assistant Director of Public Works ~ MEMORANDUM TO: CITIZEN SERVICE REQUEST #61-82, dated 9/8/82 The attached report is in response to your 11-30-82 memorandum requesting such information. The report includes a chronology, a statement of current status and a statement of conclusion. I'll be happy to go over the report with you if you so wish. DEB:sk Attachment I () I 0 \ LRIAr-/A. S+ - . STATUS REPORT: CITIZEN SERVICE REQUEST #61-82 (HOUSTON/WEIDENHAFT) December 6, 1982 I. CHRONOLOGY Date Event 10/9/81 Houston complained Weidenhaft built new stable without permit, improper setbacks, too many horses. Inspector Puent visited site numerous times before finding someone home at Weidenhaft residence. Puent con- cluded small addition to stable was illegal. Because he caught Weidenhaft constructing the enlargement, "Red-tagged" the work. 10 & 11/81 . 12/8/81 Inspector Johnson sent letter to Weidenhaft advising that illegal addition had to be removed (no deadline). 1!7 /82 Houston telephoned and then visited Johnson, complained that whole stable had not yet been removed. Johnson advised Houston that City could, based on evidence, only require removal of the stable addition. .In response, Houston alleged that entire stable was illegal because it was built without a permit, and AFTER annexation to City. Johnson began research to check Houston's allegation that annexation preceded stable's construction. 1/8/82 .' 1/20/82 Johnson wrote to Houston, informing him of City's inability to confirm his allegation that annexation preceded stable con- struction. This is based on study of City's aerials. Also, advised Houston that Weidenhaft had, in disregard to City's order, completed stable addition, and that City would refer case to City Attorney's office. 2/3/82 Joe Leahy sent Weidenhaft letter, ordering removal of stable addition by 3/15/82. 2/16 & 18/82 Puent visited site, observed no progress of removal. 3/9/82 Puent visited site, observed completion of stable addition's' removal. ,,, Comment Although Houston claims he made earlier complaints to City on this matter, this is first complaint on file. Although other violations of NEW code were obvious, it was impossible to conclusively prove they did not pre-exist 1965 annexation to City, because old lumber was-u5ed, for the most part, throughout the stable. Weidenhaft was asked many times by both Puent and Johnson whether any portion of stable other than the addition had been built by him. Weidenhaft always maintained that, other than addition, stable existed prior to his 1975 purchase. City staff, having heard nothing from Houston since Johnson's 1/20/82 letter to him, considered case CLOSE~. 'i'. I. CHRONOLOGY Date 3/15/82 4/2/82 . 4/7/82 6/9/82 6 & 7/82 7/82 8/82 .' 9/8/82 9/1 0/82 9/24/82 9/29/82 I~ Page 2 Event City Attorney received letter from Houston. Letter recounted history of his complaint and City's action and alleged that remaining portion of stable was also illegal. Letter intro- duced no new evidence. In response to Leahy's request, Johnson sent Leahy memo recounting case history. Leahy responded to Houston's letter, advising of City's inability to take further action unless further evidence provided. Houston visited Johnson, 'submitting previous owner's name/' address and photos (dated by Houston) "showing" that entire stable built by Weidenhaft. Johnson and Leahy conferred many times; attempted many times to contact previous owner without success. Don Hurd, previous owner's son, contacted. He said he didn't "think" his father built stable, but expressed desire to not get involved. City Attorney's office decided to aggressively push the case for Court decision, if necessary.. Johnson sent letter to Weidenhaft, requiring removal of that portion of stable in setback area. Weidenhaft called Johnson in response to 9/8/82 letter; once again maintained that entire remaining stable existed when he purchased property in 1975 from Marvin Hurd. Johnson talked with Marvin Hurd on phone, decided to follow up with personal visit. Johnson and Leahy met Marvin Hurd in Creswell. Hurd said original stable built about 1946, small addition in 1962. Conment Johnson di scussed new "evidence" with Leahy. Leahy encour- aged Johnson to contact previous owner. Any actions from this point forward had to do with new and separate "case". Leahy did not expect Weidenhaft to comply with this order, but expected that the order and Weidenhaft's non-compliance would lead to Court resolution. " I. CHRONOLOGY - Page 3 Date 9/30/82 10/4/82 . 10/82 10/82 11 /1 /82 11/8/82 . 11/29/82 11/30/82 ". Event Puent, Johnson, and Leahy visited stable site. Concluded existing stable was twice size described by Marvin Hurd, and that either Hurd was incorrect in his description or Weidenhaft had constructed another addition after purchase. Hurd telephoned Johnson, then met Johnson at site. Hurd said perhaps his description had been wrong, or--perhaps--a tenant (prior to Weidenhaft's purchase) had enlarged the stable. Houston called Johnson to inquire of status. Johnson advised Houston that City still lacked conclusive evidence. Houston located, purchased, and showed to Leahy aerial photos taken in 1979 and 1981. Photos showed, without doubt, ,that stable had been significantly added to between 1979 and 1981, definitely after annexation and after Weidenhaft's purchase. Leahy advised Johnson that Houston had found conclusive evidence. Houston delivered 1979 and 1981 aerial photos to Johnson. Johnson, Leahy, and Ron Clark met with Weidenhaft, showed con- clusive evidence. Weidenhaft admitted that evidence was con- clusive but denied knowledge of how stable got enlarged. City staff informed Weidenhaft that written order for removal of illegal addition would be forthcoming. He asked for some time to think about a remedy. City staff said they would work with Weidenhaft insofar as reasonable. Weidenhaft then filed com- plaint against Houston, but was told that City staff would pursue his complaint as a separate matter with its proper priority. Weidenhaft informed Johnson and Lorne Pleger of his plan to build entire new barn, then tear down entire old stable. Johnson mailed letter to Weidenhaft, ordering removal of illegal portion of stable by 2/1/83, regardless of his progress on new barn. Comment Leahy made significant effort, but was unable to locate "tenant" . Houston was given "b 1 i nd" copy of thi s 1 etter and a 11 other letters to Weidenhaft. He was kept informed by City staff throughout the entire process. '. II. STATUS Page 4 City staff has determined that Houston's complaint is valid. Weidenhaft has been ordered to remove the violation by 2/1/83. The 2/1/83 date is reasonable and practical and was worked out with Weidenhaft in order to achieve a Euality solution, rather than one which merely meets the letter of the Code, but might still leave Houston upset. II 1. CONCLUSION . The matter, hopefully, is nearing a satisfactory conclusion. City staff has indeed done its job of enforcing the Zoning Code, with appropriate attention to legal discretion and due process. We have probably spent at least 500 manhours (or $10,000) on Houston's complaints. This magnitude of effort could be viewed as inordinate, unjustified, and too excessive to really be in the public's interest. However, when caught between feuding neighbors, as is often the case, staff is not allowed to lay matters to rest. Although this Houston/Weidenhaft matter is perhaps an extreme case, some others of the 460 similar complaints we handle in a typical year approach this degree of staff effort. Often, there is much' more than meets the "outsider's" eye. DE8/SJ/sk . , ,