HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Miscellaneous 1982-4-2
.
.
~@~@~illu(!]@)(1O~
..
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
April 2, 1982
TO:
J~e Leahy,
Assistant City Attorney
~
I
FRO~l:
Sally Johnson,
Environmental Inspector
SUBJECT: February 25, 1982 Letter To Your Office From Mr. and Mrs. Jack Houston
With Regard To The Barn At 2101 Laura Street
In response to a complaint from the Houstons, Dave Puent, Building Inspector,
inspected the barn at 2101 Laura Street and spoke with the Weidenhafts in
November, 1981. Mr. Puent advised the owners that the barn, because of in-
adequate setbacks is a non-conforming structure and that any additions to it
would have to be removed. He also advised them that the portion of the barn
that had been damaged during the wind.storm referred to in the Houstons' let-
ter could not be rebuilt. A letter was sent on December 8, 1982 confirming Mr.
Puents' directive. In addition, the letter addressed an illegal advertising
sign on the property. The sign was removed; however, the Weidenhafts had not
yet removed the addition to the barn when Mr. Houston called with information
that the entire barn had been moved onto the property a few years ago. Because
the City has no record of any such proceedings, I requested Mr. Houston to pre-
sent a letter to our office with neighbor signatures, dates, or any concrete
evidence that he could obtain in order to help determine when the barn was erec-
ted or moved onto the property.
Meanwhile, I studied aerial photographs from 1960, 1972, and 1980. These photos
show a structure in what appears to be the present location of the barn. The
1960, 1972, and 1979 aerials all appear to be the same. However, the 1980 photo
shows the barn to be somewhat larger. In 1960, the area was not yet annexed to
the City, which classifies the barn (or the main portion of it) as a non-conform-
ing structure. Change of ownership of property does not negate a non-conforming
structure, nor does routine maintenance and repair, only additions and/or altera-
tions change the status of a non-conformity.
On January 20, 1982, Mr. Houston was sent a letter from this office notifying him.
of the above information. The letter also invited him to view the aerial photos,
to contact us if he had further information relative to the barn's placement and
informed him that we would pursue the violation by requiring removal of the por-
tion of the barn we could substantiate had been added. After a February 3, 1982
letter from your office, the portion of the barn that we could prove had been
added (as determined from aerial photos and the inspector's judgement with regard
to new materials used on the barn) was removed. The final inspection was conducted
on March 9, 1982.. During the time span between my January 20, 1982 letter to Mr.
Houston and the final inspection of the Weidenhaft barn, this office received no
further communication from the Houstons.
With regard to the Afra Saddlery property, this matter is entirely unrelated to
the non-conformity of the Weidenhaft barn. The owner of Afra's Saddlery applied
to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit to enlarge stables that
.
l
'.
~IE~IO TO
Joe Leahy
2101 Laura Street
April 2, 1982
Page 2
were used as a pre-existing commercial business in the RA Suburban Residential
District, i.e. for the boarding and grooming of horses and the selling of horse
related items. The Planning Commission denied the Conditional Use Permit. The
stable could have been built outright, without a Conditional Use Permit, had it
been designed as an accessory to a residentially permitted use in that zone.
Setbacks were not the question in the Afra Saddlery case nor was the potential
elimination of the permitted use of keeping horses or other livestock, as the
Houston's letter indicates.
/
I have attached copies of the correspondence from this office relative to the
problem. Please advise me if you require further clarification.
S~~t.
Sally Johnson
Environmental Inspector
..c>
attachments
Is