No action on Conditional Use Permit Violations

[CdwJava]

Is your REAL objection to the property the fact that the building is to be used for the intended purpose as a "mental health drug/alcohol abuse respite"? Are you seeking to delay or cease the facility's use and this is the only angle you could find? Or, are you truly obsessive and concerned about building codes and adherence to the local rules and regulations?

 

[quincy]

Code violations, as a note, could result in fines if corrections are not made within a designated amount of time - but the violations, if any, are unlikely to result in a change to the already-approved use of the building as a mental health/drug and alcohol abuse “respite” center.

 

[Zigner]

Code violations, as a note, could result in fines if corrections are not made within a designated amount of time...

To reiterate - it COULD result in fines. There is no requirement that the city levy fines.

 

[quincy]

To reiterate - it COULD result in fines. There is no requirement that the city levy fines.

True.

The permits or approvals issued are (generally) good for 24 months. Code violations (generally) must be corrected within 30 days although extensions to this time are available. But suspensions or revocations of permits or approvals would (generally) result only if the “permit or approval was obtained through fraud or deceit, where applicant has willfully refused to correct a violation order, or where the inspector is denied access to the premises.”

 

[stealth2]

Personally? I'm going with NIMBY syndrome.

 

[quincy]

Personally? I'm going with NIMBY syndrome.

That is what it sounds like.

The time to argue against city approval of the facility’s use apparently already has passed. Now is probably a good time to accept that the neighborhood has a new neighbor and try to make peace with it and them.

 

[cabmkr]

Sure it's NIMBY, and I really don't resent the people moving in. My problem is with the property owners who will be lining their pockets with state funded money while they vacate the premises. Had they donated the use of the building or stuck around to help with the endeavor I would have a completely different attitude about it. I just want to make sure the conditions of the facility are met as per the CUP agreement to hold them to their end of the bargain.

 

[quincy]

Sure it's NIMBY, and I really don't resent the people moving in. My problem is with the property owners who will be lining their pockets with state funded money while they vacate the premises. Had they donated the use of the building or stuck around to help with the endeavor I would have a completely different attitude about it. I just want to make sure the conditions of the facility are met as per the CUP agreement to hold them to their end of the bargain.

I can understand you wanting the property to be up to code.

If you contacted the city about code violations already, however, the city may have looked into your complaint and found no problem at this time.

 

[stealth2]

My problem is with the property owners who will be lining their pockets with state funded money while they vacate the premises. Had they donated the use of the building or stuck around to help with the endeavor I would have a completely different attitude about it. I

Horrors. How dare they do it first.