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

Home Browse Search

3 �� ' . entltled to the Certificate of Occupancy received as a matter of right. The - CitX could not impose unauthorized conditions on that occupancy and require acceptance or vacation of the premises. Nor is there any element of detrimental reliance on the part of the C1ty which would, in any way, give � rise to an estoppel against Mr. Henke. Lovell v. Citv of Kearney. 200 Neb. 478, 263 N.W.2d 867. 868 (1978> . Hence, Mr. Henke is not estopped from challenging the right of the City to require the installation of conforming footings and foundatlon at the sub�ect property. See State ex rel . Democrat Printing Co. v. Schmiege, 18 Wis.2d 325, 118 N.W.2d 845, 851 (1963> . . Throughout his dealings with the City, Mr. Henke has asserted that the structure is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure to which the provisions of the Uniform Bullding Code, adopted by reference in Orono, have no application. It is clear that the structure 1n question was built before the effective date of the Orono ordinance adopting the Uniform Building Code and, in fact, prior to the formulation of the Code. Mr. Henke relies on section 104(b) of the Code which states that an alteration or repair to a structure may be made without requiring the existing building to comply with the Code as : long as the additional alteration or repair does conform to the Code. Section 104(c) of the Code, however, provides: Buildings in existence at the time of the adoption of this Code may have their existing use or occupancy continued, if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of the adoption of this Code, provided such continued use is not dangerous to 1ife. Hence, while an existing building need not automatically be brought up to all of the standards of the Uniform Building Code when construction, alteration or repair takes place, no condition may be perpetuated which is "dangerous to life", even if the structure was in existence at the time of the adoption of the Code. � 7he Administrative Law Judge need not decide whether the unmortared block support structure for the house was appropriate when the structure was built in 1935; he need only decide whether the existing condition constit��trs a danger to human life. The Administrative Law Judge doe� �ate, however, that no other structure in the area has a similar method of support. The Building Official testlfied that the unsecured support system did � create a condition dangerous to human life. The photographs of the support ` system for the structure, City Exhibits 4 and 5, shoa that the blocks are currently deviating from a straight horizontal line and that the ground on which the support rests is sloping. unflnished and sub�ect to erosion from water runoff and other climactic conditions. If the house left the blocks serious i��rYoccudanthof�the housetandTchildrentwho might play�under they Mr. Henke but a y p � structure. � Mr. Henke offered no testimony to contest the expert opi�ion of the Building Official , except to state that the structure has stood since 1935. � The photographs, however, show that the blocks are not original . It 1s entlrely possible that the house has come off the support blocks in the past. Mr. Jacobs had requested that Mr. Henke provide a statement from a structural engineer that the support system did not create a dangerous condition. Mr• -7- :