paperwork re: code violations-inspections;ltrs;court papers, etc.

Home Browse Search

� �' , u � Occupancy. 7he City subsequently af�tlnes and foundationharge and gave Mr. Henke a date for completion of the 9 � 20. In October of 1984� Mr. Henke appeared before the City Council and � explained his opposition to installing the required footings and foundation. He asserted -that since the structure was standing at the time of the effective date of the Uniform Building Code and the zoning ordinance of the City of Orono, it was a pre-existing, non-conforming structure, exempt from the footing and foundatlon requirements contained in the Code. � 21 . By Notice of Council Action dated October 19, 1984, the City Council approved an extension of the Certificate of Occupancy until July 23, 1985, conditioned on Mr. Henke installing the new roof and approved footings and foundation for the structure. City Ex. 8. Mr. Henke adhered to his original position that the City could not require him to install the footings and foundation required by the Uniform Building Code. He did not comply with the Notice of Council Action. 22. By letter dated February 19, 1985, the City Attorney for the City of Orono informed Mr. Henke that the City did not accept his position that the � footings and foundation could not be required of a pre-existing structure. He was also informed that failure to comply with the Council 's action by July 31 , 1985, would result in a nullification of the temporary Certificate of Occupancy, requiring Mr. Henke to vacate the premises. City Ex. 9. Mr. Henke per5isted in his refusal to install the footings and foundation. 23. On March 20, 1986, the City filed a criminal action in Hennepin County Municipal Court against Mr. Henke for the asserted violations of the Orono City Ordinances and the Uniform Building Code. City Ex. 7. There is no � evidence 1n the record of the current status of that criminal proceeding. 24. By letter dated September 10, 1986, the Building Inspector informed Mr. Henke that his persistent refusal to install the footings and foundation � required by the Unifarm Building Code would result in the City revoking his Certificate of Occupancy, requiring him to vacate the premises. In addition, � the City stated it would initlate a ;azar�ousHenkedwas glvennuntijr Minnesota Statutes § 463.16 (1986). City Ex. 0 September 30� 1986 to request a hearing on the revocation of his conditional � Certificate of Occupancy. City Ex. 10. 25. By letter dated September 30, 1986, Mr. Henke requested a hearing on the revocation of his conditional Certificate of Occupancy. C1ty Ex. 11 . 26. The current structural support for the buildinq. _consisting of unmortared� statked concrete blocks resting on unfinished soil , creates a hazardous condition. The structure might slide because of increased interior weight or a shifting and .erosion of the untreated soil from water runoff or � other conditions. Photographs of the structure shov+ that the blocks are � already deviating from a straight vertical line. City Ex. 4; City Ex. 5. The condition 1s dangerous not only to Mr. Henke but also to persons. including : chlldren. who might be on the property and possible subsequent owners of the :. property. _ 27. There is no evidence in the rhuman life orecreatestaCcondition�f the roof on the structure is dangerous to . � adverse to publlc health or safety. City Ex. 10. � -4- �