Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 8, 2003 <br />Mr. Cossack indicated that he has $50,000 into the recreation building. <br />Blesener noted that Mr. Cossack was informed to stop construction when <br />the concrete slab for the structure was first poured. Cossack indicated that <br />at that point he had $13,000 into concrete work and $11,000 into a therapy <br />tub. Cossack indicated that the recreation building is now getting wrecked <br />by the weather acrd he would like to finish it. Cossack again stated that the <br />situation between him and the Building Official has gotten personal, and <br />the Building Official will not give him any options. <br />Fahey noted that the recreation building was built in total violation of the <br />Code, and now Mr. Cossack is asking the City to ignore the Codes. <br />Mr. Cossack indicated that he is not asking that the Codes be ignored, and <br />he would expect to pay a penalty. He indicated that removing the building <br />is not an option. Cossack stated that he would like the City to work with <br />him, and indicated that the Building Official is not. <br />Fahey felt that the City Attorney should be instructed to make any <br />clarifications to the Code necessary to clarify that a tunnel is not an <br />approved means of combining two structures into one. Again, Fahey <br />pointed out that Mr. Cossack's options for clarifying the situation are <br />outlined in the September 25°' letter. Fahey stated that either Mr. Cossack <br />decides to pursue one of these options, or the matter will be decided in a <br />different forum. <br />Cossack stated that if the City wanted to take its citizens to court, that was <br />fine. He also indicated that there is nothing in the City Code that states <br />that structures cannot be combined with an underground connection. <br />Fahey disagreed with Cossack's comment about the Code, and indicated <br />that if there is any ambiguity, then the City Attorney should prepare an <br />ordinance amendment clarifying the Code. <br />Cossack indicated that another option would be to construct a covered <br />walkway to connect the two structures. Fahey noted that the connection <br />would have to be more substantial than a covered walkway. Fahey <br />pointed out that Mr. Cossack has not proposed a feasible solution to the <br />situation, and again noted that the recreation building was constructed <br />illegally without a building permit. <br />Cossack asked why the City should be able to tell him what he can do with <br />his property. <br />Fahey pointed out that that is why Mr. Cossack ignored the letters from <br />the City and continued to illegally construct the recreation building. <br />4 <br />