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

Home Browse Search

t_ P, � , Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Hearing Officer makes the fol lo�ring: � RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of the Hearing Officer to the City of Orono that it declare the conditional Certificate of Occupancy issued to Charles Henke void and require the vacation of the structure unless, wlthin thirty (30) days from the date of its Order, Mr. Henke secures the appraval of the Build9ng Official for a system of support for the structure which complies with Chapter 29 of the Uniform Building Code and completes the installation of that system wlthin ninety <90> days of the date of its Order. The 5ystem of support for the structure required by the Buiiding Official should be tf�e least costly alternative which is consistent with the value of the structure and the requirements of Ch�pter 29 of the Unlform Building Code. : ? Dated thi s i��'�ay of , 1987- � � % r ,., � � ��. C� . � -BRUCE" . CAMPBELL Administrative Law Judge NOTICE It is respectfully requested that the City Council provide the Hearing Officer with a copy of 1ts decislon herein. Reported: Tape recorded. MEMORANDUM The City seeks to require Mr. Henke to vacate the structure at 3536 Lyric Avenue for �n asserted violatton of the temporary Certiflcate of Occupancy, issued on �ebruary 23. 1983. That certificate required the lnstallation of footings and a foundation in accordance with Chapter 29 of the Uniform Building Code and repair of the roof. Mr. Henke did sign the temporary Certificate of Occupancy� agreeing to make the modificatlons to the structure. See Finding 10, supra. Mr. Henke, however, asserts that the requirements are invalid and his agreement was obtained under duress. Mr. Henke also reltes on two separate grounds for refusing to install the required footings and foundation: the status of the structure as a pre-existing, non-conforming structure; and ettoppel against the City. It cannot be seriously contended that Mr. Henke voluntarlly agreed to E lnstall the requisite footings and foundat_ion so as to prohibit him from now . contesting that requirement. A party is not estopped to. attack an action or transaction of a municipality when that party was entitled to the benefits ' received as a matter of right and regardless of the action or transaction in question. 0'Hara v. Citv of South Fort Mitchell � 290 S.W.2d 455 (Ky. 1956) . Gulf C & 5 Frv Co. v. White, 281 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. Civ. App. 1955). If the City could not legally requlre Mr. Henke to conform to the footings and foundation requirement of Chapter 29 of the Unlform Bullding Code. he was -6- . ..