Laserfiche WebLink
2811 Farview Lane <br />April 4', 1987 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />3/13/87 Received Hennepin County access permit for County Road 84 access. <br />3/17/87 Received sketch from Nitz showint, 1'x50'xl6C' pondir,q area above <br />culvert, noting house would be moved 15' south. <br />3/24/87 Received additional deck design information a-. requested. <br />3/?.7/87 Call from Farview neighbor (unKnown - - "digging on corner lot" - <br />staff went to the site approximate.: y 12:15 p.m., found excavator <br />from Bollig and Sons, Inc. excavating for basement. MPG told cat <br />operator that he must stop work because he was excavating in <br />violation of Code since the building permit had not been issued. <br />He said he "thought Nitz had the permit already". He called his <br />boss on his truck radio. His boss told him to stop wo k as <br />ordered by the City. Then I proceeded to show the cat operator <br />what the City intended to approve. He was not aware that the <br />house was going to be 15' south of the staked location. He was <br />not aware of the septic location and had piled dirt on about 1/4 <br />of the primary drainfield site already. His excavation for the <br />basement was perhaps 1/3 complete. MP_. posted a stop work order <br />and ordered that the steep banks of the e>.cavation be flattened <br />out for safety purposes, then MPG left the site at 12:30 p.m. <br />l (Oman also present during the above). I then met directly with <br />�< JAM who stated that we should require the excavation to be <br />returned �o original grade, since no permit had been issued. I <br />\e returned to the site at 12:45 p.m. and informed cat operator of <br />the change, that he would have to restore the site to original <br />4grade because a) no permit had been issued; b) if for some <br />� J reason permit was not issued we would ha-'� no leverage to get it <br />restored; ^) because of the potential ioi an =njunction by the <br />ne' , it might be a long time before the mattter is settled <br />��d we ccn't allow an open excavation on the site for a long <br />period.o) He then called his boss and stated that "the City is <br />telling him to restore the site because they might never ge} a <br />permit" which was an inL.rrect statement on his part. He was <br />given the go-ahead to restore, at which time he said he would <br />restore as requested, and I left the site. We did not issue a <br />tag to Bollig, but noted to the cat operator that we might issue <br />a tag +.o Nitz. <br />When I got back to the office about 1 �.m., t`-e footing <br />contractor was waiting to get a permit; however, the plan review <br />was not complete, and he also said "well I do- 't have the check <br />with me anyhow". The secretaries informed me chat the footing <br />contractor supposedly had a check for ^V1,200 based on an estimate <br />he had received from the secretaries used on what he said the <br />value was. The actual fee was not yet established as of this <br />time. I toll him (footing man) to get back to uo on Tuesday or <br />so, by whic_. .:ime we expected plan review to be complete, and to <br />expect a penalty fee. <br />