Code violation, specific description required?

[Monkey Business]

Illinois

I would think that (building / drainage) code violations would need to be specific and detailed.

For example: The mayor of a municipality wants to issue violations on properties. The building / engineering director drafts a violation like " you built a wall without permits from this municipality...". This draft is sent to the municipal lawyer for review. The lawyer checks a bit and notices that you actually had a permit to build a wall. The municipal lawyer advises the building official to change the wording to "... altered the wall without permits... looking for more flexible language here"

Does a municipality (in Illinois) have a right to cloud the wording to the point where it could mean almost anything in order to record a violation?

 

[quincy]

Illinois

I would think that (building / drainage) code violations would need to be specific and detailed.

For example: The mayor of a municipality wants to issue violations on properties. The building / engineering director drafts a violation like " you built a wall without permits from this municipality...". This draft is sent to the municipal lawyer for review. The lawyer checks a bit and notices that you actually had a permit to build a wall. The municipal lawyer advises the building official to change the wording to "... altered the wall without permits... looking for more flexible language here"

Does a municipality (in Illinois) have a right to cloud the wording to the point where it could mean almost anything in order to record a violation?

Not really. The wording should be clear and unambiguous.

 

[adjusterjack]

Does a municipality (in Illinois) have a right to cloud the wording to the point where it could mean almost anything in order to record a violation?

The obvious answer to that is no but what does that have to do with

altered the wall without permits

If the wall was altered without a permit that was necessary for the alteration?

The phrase "altered the wall without permits" doesn't mean almost anything. It means "altered the wall without permits." Pretty specific if you ask me.

What's your problem with that citation? Did you alter a wall without a permit when altering the wall required a permit for the alteration?

And you are ticked off because you got caught?

Clear this up if you don't mind.

 

[quincy]

If a law said "build a wall" and it was changed to "alter a wall" AFTER a wall was altered, the alteration would not be subject to the new law. The new law could not be applied retroactively to previously altered walls.

 

[adjusterjack]

OP said nothing about a change in a law, just a change in the wording of the citation for the violation.

 

[quincy]

OP said nothing about a change in a law, just a change in the wording of the citation for the violation.

It sounds to me like the violation was changed from build to alter, this so a citation could be issued for the altering of the wall.

But I could be reading it wrong.

Perhaps Monkey Business will clarify.

 

[adjusterjack]

Perhaps Monkey Business will clarify.

Hope so.

 

[not2cleverRed]

The obvious answer to that is no but what does that have to do with



If the wall was altered without a permit that was necessary for the alteration?

The phrase "altered the wall without permits" doesn't mean almost anything. It means "altered the wall without permits." Pretty specific if you ask me.

What's your problem with that citation? Did you alter a wall without a permit when altering the wall required a permit for the alteration?

And you are ticked off because you got caught?

Clear this up if you don't mind.

It could also mean that there was a permit obtained to do something, but what was actually done deviated from the plan submitted, and the modified plan was not submitted. Some seem to live by, "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission." However, occasionally forgiveness is not forthcoming...

 

[Monkey Business]

Hello and thanks for the interest.

The wall was built with a permit and was not altered by us since it was constructed - aside from being damaged by a nearby municipal pipe. The municipality's engineer has been on site many times within the past several years (countless emails discussing damage to the wall - please keep in mind that the draft citation from this same engineer was that the wall was constructed without permits...) , county aerial photography shows the wall every year since it was constructed and a recent town engineering project included a survey which should show the wall and could be compared to the original municipal permits issued when the wall was built. The municipality will not release the recently prepared survey or engineering project drawings either prior to the citation being issued or afterward through FOIA requests (IL AG Public access request determination in progress). The municipality simply needed / wanted to issue a citation. It's comming up on a year since the citation was issued with no direct written response from the municipality to repeated emails to justify or drop the violation.

Common sense would dictate that the violation be dropped. I have obtained email exchanges between the mayor, engineer, lawyer containing these quotes... "...the mayor wants to issue violations on these properties.." "...change 'built' to 'altered, looking for more flexible language..." (no, I have not presented these emails to the municipality). I am asking if there is a legal requirement that the violation have specific language explicitly describing the alleged violation, such as "wall was lengthened / thickened / demolished without permits..." instead of a flexible "altered"?

Some of our neighbors have also been issued related B.S. violations and have spent thousands of dollars on attorneys and engineers with the municipality mostly not responding to them either. I would like to approach the IL states attorney(?) with something and I don't even know what to call this aside from recording false violations on our property. Are there requirements for accuracy/specifics when issueing citations in the Illinois legal statutes?

 

[quincy]

Hello and thanks for the interest.

The wall was built with a permit and was not altered by us since it was constructed - aside from being damaged by a nearby municipal pipe. The municipality's engineer has been on site many times within the past several years (countless emails discussing damage to the wall - please keep in mind that the draft citation from this same engineer was that the wall was constructed without permits...) , county aerial photography shows the wall every year since it was constructed and a recent town engineering project included a survey which should show the wall and could be compared to the original municipal permits issued when the wall was built. The municipality will not release the recently prepared survey or engineering project drawings either prior to the citation being issued or afterward through FOIA requests (IL AG Public access request determination in progress). The municipality simply needed / wanted to issue a citation. It's comming up on a year since the citation was issued with no direct written response from the municipality to repeated emails to justify or drop the violation.

Common sense would dictate that the violation be dropped. I have obtained email exchanges between the mayor, engineer, lawyer containing these quotes... "...the mayor wants to issue violations on these properties.." "...change 'built' to 'altered, looking for more flexible language..." (no, I have not presented these emails to the municipality). I am asking if there is a legal requirement that the violation have specific language explicitly describing the alleged violation, such as "wall was lengthened / thickened / demolished without permits..." instead of a flexible "altered"?

Some of our neighbors have also been issued related B.S. violations and have spent thousands of dollars on attorneys and engineers with the municipality mostly not responding to them either. I would like to approach the IL states attorney(?) with something and I don't even know what to call this aside from recording false violations on our property. Are there requirements for accuracy/specifics when issueing citations in the Illinois legal statutes?

When someone violates a law, they should be informed of exactly what law they are violating, and how they are violating it.

You cannot defend against a violation if you don't know how you violated the law.

 

[Monkey Business]

When someone violates a law, they should be informed of exactly what law they are violating, and how they are violating it.

You cannot defend against a violation if you don't know how you violated the law.

Right, and I have documents that demonstrate that they needed/wanted to issue a citation and were stumbling around to make it "valid". So, if I were to ask the states attorney to step it, what offense has the municipality committed?

 

[quincy]

... So, if I were to ask the states attorney to step it, what offense has the municipality committed?

Creative citing?

I don't know that an offense was committed. I think the municipality is simply misreading or misapplying an existing law.

 

[HighwayMan]

I don't know what the big deal is. Look up the statute and see what it says. The violation notice should at least have the law/code and section number on it somewhere.

 

[Monkey Business]

The municipality is lying about the violation, it doesn't matter which section they picked out. I would like to know what Illinois statutes the municipality is violating by issuing groundless / made up violations.

 

[HighwayMan]

The municipality is lying about the violation, it doesn't matter which section they picked out.

It certainly does matter if you want to fight this.