12 dishonest and false statements made by the city about the greenhouse

Lies and False statements

1) The city website asserts that the original application was four pages. This is false. The original application contained 82 pages and is much more detailed than the documents the city puts forward.

2) The city website states that the Administrative Law Judge ordered the homeowners to have "plans produced by a licensed architect to show what has been constructed to date, what work needs to be removed or modified to meet Code, and what work remains to be completed." This is false. The judge's order tells the homeowners to secure "the required permit" and makes no mention of plans produced by an architect.

3) The city website states that during "inspection on July 18, 2023, City staff found 22 separate deviations from the originally approved plans and scope of work. This is false. The inspection report does not mention one specific deviation from approved plans. The 11 corrections identified on the final inspection are minor and could be made in a couple of days. (the 22 items are dealt with separately below).

4) The city website states that extensive deviations discovered on July 18, 2023 included use of the neighboring lot for dumping dirt. This is dishonest and deceptive in that it indicates that the homeowners put dirt on a property they did not own. This is false. The dirt pile in question was the spoils from excavation which the residents temporarily stored in their own back yard (which has a separate pin number). The statement refers to a previous case brought to the city in December of 2022 and ultimately resolved on April 19 2023. The homeowners hold a valid and separate permit for storing the dirt spoils from excavation of the greenhouse in their own yard.

5) The city website states that on July 18, 2023 city inspectors discovered that the homeowners had installed "a wood deck complete with handrails and a staircase" This is false. the deck was built by previous homeowners prior to 2002 and is clearly shown on the approved permit as "existing deck".

6) The city website states that on July 18, 2023, city inspectors discovered the installation of multiple sump pumps without approved discharge areas. This is false. There is one sump pump. It was inspected and approved in the rough plumbing inspection of July 22, 2021 and then again in the final plumbing inspection on July 14, 2023.

7) The city website states that on July 18, city inspectors discovered a complete re-orientation of the structure, which had been flipped 180 degrees from the originally approved plans. This is false. The loft area and woodburning stove (not the entire structure) were rotated 39 degrees (not 180 degrees) and this modification was inspected and approved by city inspector John Shuldt during the framing inspection in spring 2021.

8) The city website states that throughout the construction process, the applicants had four approved inspections. this is false. The applicants had seven approved inspections: a fact which city inspector Stuart Caravello admitted under oath on November 15, 2023. City inspectors gave approval for (1) the footing inspection (2) the foundation inspection (3) the backfill inspection (4) the framing inspection (5) the rough electrical inspection (6) the rough plumbing inspection and (7) the final plumbing inspection. Furthermore, the city hid the rough plumbing inspection report for 11 months, even withholding it from a FOIA request and going as far as to send the homeowners threatening letters from city attorneys attempting to stop them from obtaining the inspection report (which they did obtain in August of 2023).

9) The city website states that between December 22, 2020 and July 19, 2023 "the applicant paid two standard separate permit application fees of $157.50 totaling $315.00, and paid a single $500.00 fine. The total cost, outside of project related costs, incurred by the applicant to the City was $815.00." this is false. The total costs paid to the city were $2,025. Additionally, the city unlawfully forced the homeowner to do over $4000 of unwarranted work.

10) The city website states that "it is not seeking and has never sought to have the structure demolished." this is false. The city's 9/29/2023 Complaint and Notice to Appear demands that all structures or portions thereof need "to be removed and the site returned to its original condition.' This has not been rescinded. This is merely a public relations statement intended to make them sound more reasonable.

11) The city website states that the $105,000 structure constructed by that applicant was not the original $7,000 structure approved by the City. This is false and deliberately misleading. The change from $7000 to $105,000 reflects no change in scope, but rather a change in the city's estimating procedure. In 2020 the estimate was based on out of pocket costs (Ihomeonwer was providing the labor). On 8/3/2023 the city specifically made a change to require estimated value of the structure rather than out of pocket cost. They then immediately turned around used this against the homeowner saying that it demonstrated a change in scope.

12) The city website states that the applicants submitted a new application for a building permit on August 3, 2023 that was denied due to the deviations from the originally approved plans and insufficieent dertail in the working drawings. This is false. The application submitted on July 25, 2023 (not August 3) with additional submissions on August 10, 2023 . August 31 2023, the homeowner submitted a letter to Mr. Caravello and Mr. Dabareiner noting that the documents submitted met the city code of ordinance's requirement (Article I Building Code Section 4-1(h)(3)), being “in sufficient detail to describe the character of the work proposed” for “single-family residential additions, alterations, remodeling and accessory structures''. The letter requests the city consider the burdensome costs of their request, consider the fact that the structure was permitted and passed all 7 inspections prior to the final inspection, and approve the permit.  For four weeks (August 31 2023 - September 27) the city ignores the letter and multiple calls and e-mails from the homeowner's attorney. No response is ever given. No attempt ever made to show details that were lacking.