Harassment by City Planning Board

[merle jensen]

What is the name of your state? CA

We are in the process of buying (from our daughter) a residential property in Alameda Ca. We are concerned about a problem with the Alameda Planning Department that is related to this property.

This property is a renovated Craftsman. The majority of the renovation on the house was completed in about 1994 - renovation was permitted and signed off on by City inspectors.

In the backyard were two small buildings (one originally a carriage house and adjacent to it is an 85 sq. ft shed) In about 2000, there was an attempt to improve the 85 sq. ft shed. Because of deterioration and mold found, it was decided that significant renovation to the framing of the shed was necessary. No building permit was obtained because the Alameda Zoning Ordinance 30-37.2 states that no major design review or approval was needed since less than 80 sq.ft. was added to the structure.

Since 1994, both of these structures had been used as painting studios and painting storage. (The existence of these buildings in 1994 is established in a letter from the realtor and by photos).

On June 11, 2003, my daughter received a notice of Scheduled Inspection from the Alameda Building Dept. stating that on December 4, 2001, a complaint was received indicating that there may be a violation of the building code. After much inquiry, she found there was no consistent, documented process through which she could present her case. It appears that these complaints are negotiated on an ad hoc basis. (The authority/practices of the Alameda Planning Department is currently being legally challenged.)

Questions: What actions by City Government constitute
harassment?

What constitutes "tortious interference
of economic advantage"?

Is a business license required (as indicated by the Planning Commission) when the art is not sold at that location?

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state? CA

We are in the process of buying (from our daughter) a residential property in Alameda Ca. We are concerned about a problem with the Alameda Planning Department that is related to this property.

This property is a renovated Craftsman. The majority of the renovation on the house was completed in about 1994 - renovation was permitted and signed off on by City inspectors.

In the backyard were two small buildings (one originally a carriage house and adjacent to it is an 85 sq. ft shed) In about 2000, there was an attempt to improve the 85 sq. ft shed. Because of deterioration and mold found, it was decided that significant renovation to the framing of the shed was necessary. No building permit was obtained because the Alameda Zoning Ordinance 30-37.2 states that no major design review or approval was needed since less than 80 sq.ft. was added to the structure.

Since 1994, both of these structures had been used as painting studios and painting storage. (The existence of these buildings in 1994 is established in a letter from the realtor and by photos).

On June 11, 2003, my daughter received a notice of Scheduled Inspection from the Alameda Building Dept. stating that on December 4, 2001, a complaint was received indicating that there may be a violation of the building code. After much inquiry, she found there was no consistent, documented process through which she could present her case. It appears that these complaints are negotiated on an ad hoc basis. (The authority/practices of the Alameda Planning Department is currently being legally challenged.)

Questions: What actions by City Government constitute
harassment?

What constitutes "tortious interference
of economic advantage"?

Is a business license required (as indicated by the Planning Commission) when the art is not sold at that location?

**A: hire an attorney and if the complaint is not dismissed, file an appeal with the BBA.

 

[Peety]

Is a business license required (as indicated by the Planning Commission) when the art is not sold at that location?

Sounds as if they are trying to get you caught in your own statements. If you needed a business licence to conduct business on that property .... are they really trying to get you to admit to "Commercial use" of that property? Which brings up the question ..... how is the property zoned?

Unless you open up a show-room or art gallery that is open to the public, I don't see a "commercial use" of that property. As you stated in your post nothing is sold from there, so business is not being conducted there. I know that to build apartments, the property has to be zoned commercial but that involves multiple units for the same purpose. I don't think the same requirement comes into play if only one structure per purpose, or one tenant renting is the case. I don't believe that renting out that space (or using it your self) for the purpose of painting qualifies as a commercial use of those buildings.

However, additional structures that are temporary (no foundation and no permanent utility hookups) usually are not dealt with by the planning commision or the building department. Unless they know you at the counter, go in and ask questions, they are (afterall) public servants.

 

[HomeGuru]

Keep us posted writer.