Loading...
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