|
5
<br /> w
<br /> ,� �, ��•�w.~�,�+ „�r��y,. r-_^�� �,r-.�,�� y:..b' �`� A ..�v,�t ,�ry d��+,k,.A'.f�.,���',�.,+*'��5�'Yc � �� � aw
<br /> ����' �t°� ��. - �'�� • �'�� ,�,��
<br />' � �.. -. r .. . .'. .. .. , , . � '� _...`t�`3'.s"� y , �'y^- .
<br /> . . .W �'..�„ "i�'�����,,'�S} „F g�I
<br /> .. . � _ � Yw ec: S+�-ti �'T�
<br /> : . . . . . , ... . . .. w `_L u. •,s Jt� �r•..
<br /> A =
<br /> The Ci*y also provi6+sd Mr. Heake With �i�tormation ` �'���'�
<br /> ._ -� - . � . � . ,1M'a ..r#. %..F�1•.� .
<br /> ,: � � : regardinq alternative pier lnotinqs and foundation types in ;; ;�,fi
<br /> ... �4
<br /> .�� ord�r lhat the buildinq be �aade secure at a m=nimai coat to �=_�'�z ;
<br /> �i �.
<br /> '��^ ". y� � �. �•^..
<br /> hin�. 11a teatitied to �t the hearinq by tbe City inspector, it . ��� �- �
<br /> , �
<br /> "�:� q.r
<br /> .,..
<br /> . � -�)4 Yft�w'
<br /> � was apparent that Mr. Eieake choae to ignore thfa in�ormation , �.
<br /> #t `:'` , <
<br /> , P,,vh �H w, �. and<fnstead obtained quotes ��or repafrs tha� involved work 4 � '� .�� n, .
<br /> .. z*1r. ;s = ::�.< xr�.. ..:.: ., ,
<br /> , _.,�, A; �;�. .: , '� �
<br /> �t beyond ahat is necessary to meet the�IIBC/SBC 'regulations. ' '4 `�
<br /> �� � . ,:
<br /> � .� �:
<br /> ;��
<br /> = �t��}� !. � °• ,'� Mr:�fHenke's adamant refusal to remedy the atructural ' _- _
<br /> �..A :?w: ... .. ...
<br /> detecta, of his house, foiced the City to seek redress in . ��
<br /> .��
<br /> �}.
<br /> Dfstrict CourL. A citatfon was issued to Mr. Henke on r,.•
<br /> September 21, 1984, citing Mr. Henke for his violation o� ;�'� �
<br /> , . ��� ;
<br /> ; OHC/S»C Sectfon 2907. The Cfty Attarney had �ha matter set for ��;k �
<br /> ;
<br /> ? hearinq but later continued it f�r aismissal antil July 23. �}�
<br /> �,��.
<br /> i `�:;`�
<br /> ` 1985, upon the 8ecisfon of the �.ity Council to allow Mr. Henke "�
<br /> 1� . . . y��1 �.
<br /> �' aAditional time to complete the necessary fmprovemente. The ";;.�,�
<br /> ' '';:'r i
<br /> City Council arrivEd 'at its decision to extend the perfod affier ,��;<<�� �
<br /> ��,: :��
<br /> holdinq a public hearing on the matter and allowinq Mr. 8enke �=Y
<br /> . ,
<br /> to testify. Subsequent to the hearinq, a letter from the C. y � .�;�:� j
<br /> v;�
<br /> Attorney was sent to Mr. Henke settinq forth an explanation of �-;
<br /> �:
<br /> , �.
<br /> the Cfty's position. �'f
<br /> Mr. Henke did not correct the hazardous condition of �:,;i
<br /> his pcoperty in the extended time period. Instead, he
<br /> steadfastly adhered to his position that he did not have a duty
<br /> to correct the deficiencies of his buildinq. On October 10,
<br /> 1985, the City notiffed the Distrfct Court tyat a trial date �
<br /> was needed as the matter had not been resolved. A trial was
<br /> �
<br /> -a-
<br /> , -
<br /> j a...
<br /> � ..: . � ... , .,, . . .,,........w..c�.,,r.+,...,.�;.....,,.....-.-+�_ ._.... ,_...._:�_.. . .. � ... . .
<br />
|