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
.
,
,