04-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

discussions with the City when they purchased the home in December and closed on it in March 2003. She questioned hov^ the upper and lower decks impacted hardcover since they are located over and under one another. Chair Smith indicated that the current owners have found themselves in an unfortunate set of circumstances. Mr. Ch\ . iaikowski maintained that removal of the deck would be an undue hardship put upon them, since the deck was one of the reasons they bought the home in the first place. There were no public comments. Rahn stated that not having the original applicant, Mr. Johnson, on hand posed a tough scenario. He pointed out that, in his opinion, the more important issue was the structural coverage problem versus the hardcover matter. Chair Smith pointed out that the current owners could remove the deck and add an attractive railing to the upper floor balcony. Rahn stated *hat, clearly, the minutes from past meetings with Mr. Johnson refer to a ground floor deck only. Mrs. Chwialkowski stated that the deck was critical to them when purchasing the home. Since the home itself was quite small, the deck added to the homes useable living space. She referred again to the missed opportunities by the City to correct this error during numerous inspections and prior to issuing the certificate of occupancy. As Building Inspector Lyle Oman was present, he was asked to comment. Oman indicated that, when the deck came to the City’s attention, the home was still for sale and he made numerous efforts to contact the applicant. He indicated that he had been caught off guard, and that a past, ineffective, inspector had not raised this issue earlier. Mrs. Chwialkowski indicated that she was angry that they were suffering the consequences of this incompetent City official. She questioned whether it was their fault that the City had an incompetent inspector that did not catch this issue prior to occupancy or sale. Hawn encouraged the new owners to pursue Mr. Johnson. She felt they had more than adequate recourse to go after Mr. Johnson based on an inaccurate disclosure. Sh.* agreed that there was some error put upon them by the City, and that perhaps, the City Council might rethink this and allow them some leniency. However, as a Planning Commission, she indicated th?t they had approved one thing and were presented w ith something else. She urged the current owners to plead their case to the City Council, but stated that she must insist the application be returned to what was originally approved.