Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComplaint Information - 02/10/1975 II r _. f t * - 0- ., TO DATE --�0i - 5 TIME /0; ZO CALLER / z _ ADDRESS /mss 14, e_ k WILL CALL AGAIN PLEASE CALL AT WOULD LIKE INSPECTION: MESSAGE : } d.} y 1,r�. C -131L ' ;qui- 0_-\> ' 'b 1 S C_ . Asi.-;") - ri-- ( --- 0-Mizw-' : j2 4 / 14'7z /1,:p, , * . 4:_-44, . .6v-t TAKEN BY : - „..4 (,t„ , / - 2 fiv 10-i9j ''''f'('''' r-, 67 -5- - 7S / 4„ , ---(--( "■-e. 444( ,i)- 4.0( 4-x- / < '/-0 1 4 4- " ' F-‘ q-e.-7s" eti/L:froi 2ri ‘f (#-A i - 4Z._ • Q Ve'":`-' / 617 ,4 ,� ,. - - -- ------ CO-5259 No (0( Jri Branch 1.1.1 SUMMONS County, Wisconsin - JOHN M. CLARK, 1825 Minnesota St. City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin vs ___ _____ ____ -- (Decena.,,t; You are hereby summoned to,appear in County Court Branch III located at the Court House, Room 9:00 211, City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin on W .1975 _ at ___ M to answer the. charge ee) aim.) A non-conforming use of R-1B Single Family residence district in of 30:6(a)of the OshkoshMunici_pal Code violation of Ordinance/iM Dec. 3, 1974 1825 Minnesota St. The said violation occuring on at located at In the City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin. Officer(s)__ _________ • . . _ • h ColJn/y Cvq.5:1 oT Wifini:ba90 County, Wisconsin - Branch 3 ORDNANCE COMPLANT CO 5 2 5 9 CITY OF OSHKOSH The unclersighed, on behalf of tne being first duly sworn on oath depoes and statP-s. JOHN M • CT ARK , Born , residing 1825 Minnpsota St., Oshli • at_ :!;(.1 unlawfully on the - December _day of_ , 19 City _ , at the 0 f Oshkosh ______, Winne.baf-c Count 6 y _ Ch._ of th- Ordinances of said City he unlawfully and. .i .ntentionally is usih.g property El y located at 1825 Minnesota Street Str storing trli..'cks excavating equipmen t - as nc L_ructian mazt_e_r_Lak r. said property which is Zoned R Single P y Residence District and said Tor Single Fily zoning to disturb the peace and ciuiet of said_ City which said Ordinanc. is n 'At • c in . 1,4-Le and effect, verily believes and prays that the said subject tn arrested and held to answer hereto. Complainant's Signature b--Fore. rn this Judge ,2-7O - 7 7Aed TC: Walter Bush CITY OF OSHKOSH Associate City Attorney DEPT. Edward Reimer FROM: ' Chief Building Inspector Date SUBJECT 1825 Minnesota Street Since 1971, we have been receiving complaints thaL; ,ionn M. Sons Construction Company is operating a construction yard on the property known as 1825 Minnesota Street. The above property is zoned R-1.8 Single Family Residence District. Various extensions of time have been given to Mr. Clark to bring his property into compliance M because of proposed variance$before the Board of Appeals and the purchase E of property which was properly zoned for that use. Although Mr. Clark advised me on August 10, 1973 that they were purchasing property on the corner of Montana St. and. W. 22nd Avenue, 5 1 received a recent complaint about his property on Minnesota Street A and was advised that the above property is still being used as a construction yard. Trucks, excavating equipment, and Construction () materials are presently being stored in the rear yard of the property E at 1825 Minnesota Street according to my observation on December 3, 1974. I believe a complaint should be issued against Mr. Clark in violation of Section 30.6 (a) of the City Zoning Ordinance in that Mr. Clark is using the property for a use which is not listed in the =1 use for property zoned R-13 Single Family Residence District. REQUESTED DATE OF REPLY OR COMPLETION Signed Date of Reply R E L Signed BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1973 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: William Stegeman, Dorothy Schwartz, James Bingen, Harry Luebke, and Chairman, Mel Carpenter STAFF PRESENT Edward Reimer, Chief Building Inspector Patrick Vercauteren, Principal Planner Susan Sedlachek, Secretary Luebke moved for approval of the minutes of August 8, 1973, seconded by Stegeman. Motion carried, 4 -0. Motion by Schwartz for approval of the minutes of August 15, 1973, seconded by Luebke. Motion carried, 4 -0. HEARINGS 1. Appeal by JAMES STICKA, owner of the property described as Lot 38, Morgan Plat, in the 14th Ward. (803 Eckardt Court) for a variance in the side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in an R -1B Single - Family Residence District. The petitioner wishes to construct a new home with attached garage on a corner lot 75' x 120' in size. The petitioner proposes to provide a side yard of 4 feet whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 7 1/2 foot side yard be provided. Mr. Vercauteren explained that the violation is a four foot side yard instead of the 7'6" required side yard. He added that the home next door is 8'9" from the lot line. Mr. Sticka appeared before the Board and explained that he had purchased the lot with a size of 80' x 120'. He stated that he had never seen the abstract as it went right to the bank. He stated that up until August 13, 1973 they thought they had enough room - the offer to purchase paper shows 79.9' on it. Mr. Sticka presented two letters from the adjoining property owners stating that this variance request was alright with them, Morgan Company to the rear and Carl Seibold next door. Mr. Vercauteren stated that there seems to be a legal problem and that Mr. Sticka should have consulted with an attorney - it seems this is a misrepresentation on the sale. Mr. Sticka stated that he had consulted with an attorney and have found that the abstract states about 79.9 feet and since the word about is in there, it can mean anything. Page 2 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 1973 Mr. Carpenter asked if thy: Douse could be redesigned to fit better on the lot? Mr. Sticka replied that they could not - by removing 3 1/2 feet from the garage, it would no longer be a double garage, and by removing it from the other side, it would make the dining area not much more than a hallway. Mr. Luebke asked if the neighbor on Eckardt had a driveway on the same side? Mr. Sticka replied that be did, the garages would be on the same side. Mrs. Schwartz asked if the Morgan Company property is vacant? Mr. Sticka replied that it is. No one appeared in opposition to this variance. Mr. Stegeman stated that, due to the fact that when the property was purchased Mr. Sticka thought he had enough property (79.9'), he thinks this is a case of hardship and moved to allow the variance. Motion seconded by Mrs. Schwartz. Motion carried, 5 -0. 2. Appeal byRRY SCHNEIDER, Agent for KENNETH NEYHARD, owner of the property described as Lot 62, City's Replat #3, in the Sixth Ward (642 West 8th Avenue) for a variance in the lot area r of the Zoning Ordinance in an R -2 Two - Family Residence District. Mr. Schneider, owner of the property described as Lot 63, City's Replat #3, (634 West 8th Avenue) wishes to purchase the East 12 feet of Mr. Neyhard's property in order to construct a garage. However, this would reduce Mr. Neyhard's lot area to 6,775 square feet whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires that 7200 square feet of lot area be provided. Mr. Vercauteren explained that the area between the two properties is lawn and Mr. Schneider wishes to purchase a 12 foot strip to move the driveway over and construct a garage. Without the 12 feet, he has almost no room to build the garage. Mr. Schneider stated that when these blocks were plotted out they were 50 foot lots, but there was an extra 37 feet in the block. He stated that the lot next door has this extra footage, He added that it would be impossible for him to build on the other side of the house. Mr. Vercauteren questioned if the garage would be next to the tree that is there? Mr. Schneider replied that it would be. Mr. Carpenter stated that the only problem is the shortage of square feet. No one appeared in objection to this appeal. Motion by Bingen to approve the appeal, seconded by Luebke. Motion carried, 5 -0. 3. Appeal by CLIFFORD OSWALD, owner of the property described as the West 112 feet of the East 433 feet of the North 451.2 feet of the South 982.7 feet of the East 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 18 North, Range 16 East, 14th Ward, (227 West 29th Avenue) for a variance in the side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in an M -2 Indus- trial District. The petitioner wishes to construct a 30' x 40' addition to an existing structure and proposes to provide a 16 foot side yard whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20 foot side yard be provided. Page 3 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 1973 Mr. Vercauteren explained that the original building is setback 16 feet and the ordinance calls for a 20 foot setback. He added that Mr. Oswald had been granted a variance on this property in 1971. Mrs. Schwartz asked if there is much yard in the back? Mr. Oswald replied that there is. Mr. Bingen asked what the use for the addition would be? Mr. Oswald stated that it would be a repair shop. Mr. Bingen questioned if the 30' x 40' area would be repair shop rather than storage? Mr. Oswald replied that that was correct. Mrs. Schwartz asked Mr. Reimer if the existing building is already non - conforming? Mr. Reimer replied that it is. Mr. Reimer asked Mr. Oswald if there is any reason why the building can't go the other way? Mr. Oswald replied that it would make the building look bad. Mr. Bingen asked if this building was built in violation? Mr. Reimer stated that the property was split up when sold by Economy Foods and was non - conforming. Mr. Vercauteren stated that the lot width is 112 feet. Mr. Carpenter asked what type of building this would be? Mr. Oswald replied that it would be cement block. Mr. Carpenter also asked how close to a residential area this would be? Mr. Reimer replied that it is not anywhere near a residential area. Mr. Bingen asked Mr. Reimer if he had any suggestions as to how the structure could be changed? Mr. Reimer replied that it could be designed differently. Mr. Oswald stated that he does not have a big enough side yard and would not have enough room for a driveway. Mr. Bingen questioned how big the building is now? Mr. Vercauteren replied that it is 44 feet wide and 50 feet long. Mr. Oswald stated that he doesn't intend to add on any more. Mr. Bingen stated that if he built along side he would come up with 22' x 50' or 1100 square feet for back yard. Mr. Vercauteren asked if Mr. Oswald couldn't continue storage in back and build an addition on the side? Mr. Oswald replied that he has plans to extend the fence over to the property line with Oshkosh Motor Truck. Mr. Bingen stated that he would still have a lot of room in the back and if built along the side, he wouldn't have to come back for another variance. Mr. Bingen also stated that Mr. Oswald then could someday remodel to a showroom. Mr. Bingen stated that he thinks there are many solutions that could be utilized without having a variance. Mr. Carpenter asked if his plans were state approved already? Mr. Oswald replied that they are. Mr. Bingen moved to deny the appeal on the basis that there is no hardship involved or practical difficulty and there are many solutions to get him out of the bind he may be in. Motion seconded by Luebke. Motion carried, 5-0. 4. Appeal by FIRST WISCONSIINj NATIONAL BANK OF OSHKOSH, owner of the property described as Lot 12, Block 74, Original Plat of the Third Ward, in the Ninth Ward (303 West 16th Avenue) for a variance in the lot area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in an R -2 Two Family Residence District. The petitioner wishes to convert a single - family residence to a two family residence having a lot area of 5,475 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires that 6,000 square feet of lot area be provided. Page 4 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 1973 Mr. Vercauteren explained that this property is located at the corner of 16th Street and Minnesota Street. lie added that there is a two stall garage on the property and also a front and side entrance and is in the center of a large R -2 Two Family Residence District. Mr. Vercauteren added that the land use map shows that almost all of the homes on that side of the street are two family residences with the same amount of square footage. Mr. Andrew Thompson, 404 North Main Street, appeared before the Board representing the First Wisconsin National Bank, along with Mr. Donald Riegert of the Bank. Mr. Thompson stated that when the Zoning Ordinance was enacted in 1965, this property was a two family home. The purchaser's family grew and the second family use was discontinued . The problem is that the appraiser took into consideration and the mortgage loan was given based on the higher value as a two family home, and the use was discontinued afterward. Now, for various reasons, the bank owns this home and wishes to sell it and the most advantageous use would be as a two family home. The problem is the lot size is not conforming - the lot size is 109' x 50' -- 525 square feet short of the required lot size. The variance request is on the lot size, not on the discontinuance of the structure use. Mr. Luebke questioned if they are contemplating changes of any kind. Mr. Thompson stated that they were not. Mr. Bingen questioned if this always was two - family? Mr. Riegert stated that this was appraised and sold as a two family home, but they are in doubt as to how long it was used as a two family home. Mr. William Manske, 300 Division Street, appeared before the Board representing Kim Stoffel who is the neighbor immediately to the west of this property. Mr. Manske stated that these two properties share a common driveway and somewhere along the line the past owner's - the Ristow's - rented out the upstairs of the building. He stated that there was no real conflict except the sharing of the driveway. Mr. Manske stated that he doesn't think he can agree that this was a duplex in 1970, as far as Mr. Stoffel can recollect. He stated that this is the only driveway that Mr. Stoffel has and he has to pull over to the rear. Mr. Manske stated that at the time the Zoning Ordinance was passed, it could have been non- conforming use but has lost its' duplex character and the the Zoning Ordinance snaps into force. Mr. Manske stated that a joint driveway takes the best of friends for it to work at all and it is going to be a difficult situation with all of them trying to use that driveway - this is too intensive use of the land. Mr. Carpenter asked how many bedrooms there are in the building? Mr. Thompson replied that there is one upstairs and two downstairs. Mr. Bingen asked if there is any easement for use of the driveway? Mr. Manske replied that there is not, after twenty years Mr. Stoffel would have legal rights to use of the land. Mr. Vercauteren stated that it appears 4s through 3/4 of the driveway belongs to the duplex. Mr. Stoffel stated that one tree would have to be removed if more driveway would have to be put in. Mr. Vercauteren asked Mr. Stoffel how long he has owned this home? Mr. Stoffel replied that he and his wife have lived there 3 1/2 years and prior to that his mother - in - law lived there. He added that when the house was sold to them, his mother -in -law went over to the Ristow's and reconfirmed the joint use of the driveway at that time. He stated that he feels this driveway belongs to both properties and they will have problems with tenants. Mr. Ristow, just before moving, had two cars and it was a problem. Mrs. Schwartz asked if there was any possibi- ' Page 5 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 1973 lity of getting the driveway situation legalized? Mr. Manske replied that after 20 years, it runs with the land. He stated that the drive could be swung around and the garage moved to come in from the other street. Mr. Reimer stated that this could be done according to the Ordinance. Mr. Bingen stated that his only feeling is that Mr. Stoffel is taking a 50 foot lot and making it a 59 foot lot, The purpose of the Board is to judge whether there is a hardship or practical difficulty. Mr. Luebke questioned if there would be any objection if it weren't for the driveway? Mr. Stoffel replied that he didn't think so, his only objection is to the driveway. Mr. Bingen stated that Mr. Stoffel has developed rights over the years, but so have the people next door. Mr. Thompson appeared again before the Board and stated that the issue is ]being confused — this is a conforming use as it is in the R -2 zone, the only thing we are talking about is the lot size. If the lot size were larger, there would be sufficient space and they would still have the driveway problem. He added that they would not commit any future purchaser that he would have to use a driveway off of Minnesota Street. Mrs. Schwartz asked how long the bank anticipates renting this property? Mr. Thompson replied that they did not want to advertise it until they know it is all right for a two family use - it would sell somewhere in the neighborhood of six to seven thousand dollars less as a single family home. Mr. Manske appeared once again and stated that he disagrees wholeheartedly - this is a non - conforming use. Mr. Bingen stated that he feels there is a certain amount of unfairness here and he wondered if the bank would be willing to put in a driveway from Minnesota Street if this were two family, and one could use one driveway, and the other family the other driveway. Mr. Reimer stated that this would be a violation of the parking setback requirements. Mr. Bingen moved to allow the appeal, seconded by Schwartz. Motion carried, 4 -1, with Luebke casting the only no vote. 5. Appeal by MRS. JOHN CLARK, agent for HARRY AND SIMON GORWITZ owners of the property described as Lot 102, South Side Auto Plat, in the 14th Ward for a variance in the lot area, front yard, and side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in an M -2 Industrial District. The petitioner wishes to purchase a lot 45' x 135' in size (6075 square feet) whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires that the minimum lots provided in the district shall have an area of one (1) acre and a width of at least one hundred and fifty (150) feet. The petitioner wishes further, to construct a 35' x 60' building on the property and proposes to provide a five (5) foot setback from West 22nd Avenue and a five (5) foot side yard, The Zoning Ordinance requires, that a 30 foot setback from West 22nd Avenue and a 20 foot side yard be provided. Page 6 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 1973 Mr. Vercauteren explained that West 22nd Avenue is on the Official Map and the uses surrounding the area are a radiator shop, a single family house, a vacant lot, an antique shop, a vacant building - Economy House Plumbing, and Pepsi Cola Bottling. Both vacant lots are owned by the Gorwitz Brothers. Mr. and Mrs. John Clark appeared before the Board and explained that they had gotten a notice from the City to move their equipment from its' present location at their residence on Minnesota Street. Mrs. Clark stated that she has been looking for a piece of property that they could afford since earlier in the year and that they had found this property and would hope to build a building to keep their equipment out of the weather, in the meantime putting a fence around the lot to keep vandals out. Mr. Clark pointed out that he is not that big of a contractor to buy industrial property. Mrs. Clark stated that she had been looking since May through the Realtors - everything is $35,000 - $40,000. She added that they have everything in their business - in loans and building and they do not feel they have reached a point where they can buy more. Mr. Clark stated that the Gorwitz's want to hang onto the other lot for storage purposes because this adjoins their property. She added that they only have until September 9, 1973 to get their equipment off of the present location. Mrs. Schwartz asked if they bought the property, could they store the equipment there? Mr. Reimer replied that they could not, with two lots they could use it, but there is not much that can be done with just the one lot. Mrs. Clark pointed out that the buildings in the area are all non-conforming. Mr. Vercauteren stated that that is correct. She stated that if they cannot build here, it would mean non- existence of their business. Mr. Reimer stated that be doesn't believe the Gorwitz's could split the lot to sell it - it is less than an acre. Mr. Vercauteren stated that he had contacted Jerry Gehrt of the Oshkosh Industrial Development Office and he had located a building for rent. Mrs. Clark stated that the rent was too much for them without gaining equity. Mr. Bingen stated that if the lots are not to be split there is nothing that can be done. Mr. Reimer pointed out that this property is zoned M -2, they are allowed open storage surrounded by a dust - proof, non- combustible fence. Mr. Stegeman questioned why it is not possible for them to build a building on this property? Mr. Reimer replied that the Board can grant the variances. Mr. Vercauteren stated that when the Gprwitz's want to sell the other lot, they cannot and the Board will have them here again. Mr. Bingen stated that he feels this is a zoning problem. Mr. Bingen moved to lay the appeal over until after there has been time to go before the Plan Commission with a request for rezoning. Motion seconded by Stegeman. Motion carried, 5 -0. 6. Appeal by LEO J. KRUEGER, agent for LESTER BORISCH, owner of the property described as Lot 13, Block 2, Investment Company's Second Addition (411 South Knapp Street) for a variance to the accessory building area requirement and side yard requirement of the Zoning Ordinance in an R -2 Two Family Residence District. Page 7 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 1973 The petitioner wishes to construct a 4'6" x 26' addition to an existing structure. The existing structure is 20' x 48' in size and has an area of 117 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires that an accessory building not exceed 800 square feet in area. The petitioner also proposes a side yard of 1 1/2 feet whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 2 1/2 foot side yard be provided. Mr. Lester Borisch appeared before the Board and explained that he can't get his car into the garage. He added that he could put on just 2 feet, but he feels putting on 4 1/2 feet would allow him to get his snow blower in easier. He stated that he would be putting on the extension and bring both doors forward. Mr. Bingen asked if this was the old print shop? Mr. Borisch replied that it is. No one appeared objecting to this appeal. Mr. Luebke asked if the building existed before the ordinance was adopted? Mr. Borisch replied that it was used as the print shop many years ago and is now just used for his own storage. Mr. Bingen moved to allow the variance, seconded by Schwartz. Motion carried, 4 -0. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, PATRICK J. VERCAUTEREN Acting Director Department of Community Development sgs # - ........„,, . ,,,,,.c„„---,.4 .,42 - L . , ,,..,4,,1 ,/ r z ,,,,,,,_) / ) „ t , , . 9 _ , j t. 6114 &CZ-4-4 , 17 ,,itele 4 1, ti A , . 4 - 7 i / ip4 d 9 7 ye /el" i / r ' 6 J / C . ) - /.44 4 Ce'r \. / ■ 0 i / ::-) ' F /e1C-- O el/t7I'D i , ' G" '-r:..- / A ■ J f '3 S I T DATE / /- 2 G - /�3 r TIME CALLER .`._ - ADDRESS / WILL CALL AGAIN EASE CALL AT WOULD LIKE INSPECTION: MESSAGE : 4w, r) e•(/ 7)te/rtli ei/4 4 0 1r4 1 1‘) ÷ TAKEN BY: � I August 15, 1973 John M. Clark E Sons Construction Company 1825 Minnesota Street Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901 Dear Mr. Clark: This letter is confirming our telephone conversation of August 9, 1973. We will grant a 30-day extension, until September 9, 1973, of our July 5, 1973 orders concerning the illegal business use of the property at 1825 Minnesota Street. This will give you time to complete the purchase of the property on Montana Street. Please advise us of any further developments. Very truly yours, MICHAEL J. HOOCK Assistant Building Inspector MJH /db JOHN M. CLARK & SON CONSTRUCTION MASON & CEMENT CONTRACTOR BRICK — BLOCK — STONE — STEPS & PORCHES DRIVEWAYS — SIDEWALKS — FLOORS — CHIMNEYS BASEMENTS WATERPROOFED 1825 MINNESOTA STREET — OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN 54901 — PHONE 235-1729 Date August 10, 1973 TO City of Oshkosh- -Attnt Mr. Michael J. Hoock Asst. Building Inspector City Hall Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901 Siren As per our telephone conversation of 8/9/73, this is the letter you requested us to send in regards to asking for a 60 day extension in regards to the matter of .moving our equipment from the premises at 1825 Minnesota Street. This extension due to the fact that the lawyers are in the process of changing over the deed and abstract to the property we are purchasing. We do not really know just how long it will take for the abstract company to do this and therefore it a necessity at this time. 72 ed Thank you for your attention to this er. John M. Clark Construction. .z.2–: — GOIJNCU- MANAGE = A[)MIN,:,,t+AnOn: \a) July 5, 1973 John M. Clark & Sons Construction Co. 1825 Minnesota Street Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901 Dear Sir: On May 10, 1973, this department sent a letter to you concerning your residence at 1725 Minnesota Street. The compliance date on this order was May 2 3, 1973. That date has passed without compliance to this order. If you have not complied with this order by August 9, 1973, this matter will be turned over to the City Attorney for appropriate legal action. Very truly yours, MICHAEL J. HOOCK Asst. Building Inspector MJH:db cc: Walter Bush Associate City Attorney ..A;i • .'1' Cr IlItiCli AVF DIAL 1 414 -231 -4410 / P.O. BOX 1130 OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN 54901 May 10, 1973 ;old M. Clark & Sons Construction Co. 1825 Minnesota Street Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901 Dear Sir: On May 8th I inspected the property at 1825 Minnesota Street to oheok a oomplaint that this property was being used to operate a oonotruotion oompany. At the time of inspection, I found the following construction equipment on the premises: A.) Three Truoks 1. One Dump Truck 2. One Van 3. One Piok -up Truck B.) Traotor and Baokhoe C.) Miscellaneous forming lumber D.) Miscellaneous construction equipment This violation of the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 30 -6 (a) should be corrected by removing the above mentioned items on or before May 23, 1973. Very truly yours, MICHAEL J. HOOCK Asst. Building Inspector y JH :db 'N V " 6'% c1/4. A j( y 1 / I ptv\ TO DATE 5 -g - -73 TIME /D �� C CALLER ADDRESS /�'2 WILL CALL AGAIN PLEASE CALL AT WOULD LIKE INSPECTION: MESSAGE: A.t . j onize � et I !� TAKEN BY: 060, f4• %c. o /4z ° > / /I/s /f 2c; /C'J /NNE so /S'- A/o 7-- ZoN om_A,P- Mix i Q lv N N RECEIVED MAY 7 1973 . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Ed Reimer CITY OF OSHKOSH DEPT. FROM: November 21, 1972 City Manager Date SUBJECT Home Business This is a complaint that I may have overlooked. It came from Mrs. Sitter pertaining to the property at 1825 Minnesota Street. It concerns a possible home business by a Mason contractor that supposedly has five men and six trucks working all hours of the M day and night and may be in violation of home occupation. Please check. 5 S A G E REQUESTED DATE OF REPLY OR COMPLETION SI Date of Reply R E P L Y l TO '% ltX DATE //-/ - 2,2-- TIME / eD CALLER / f / ADDRESS /d' 2 4& WILL CALL AGAIN PLEASE CALL AT WOULD LIKE INSPECTION: 1 /- 9- 72- TAKEN BY: /�i� f �� a `p. TO DATE 1-7- 2 A TIME Z:00 CALLER PA Ir ` ADDRESS SCE Cu/ /9,t4 WILL CALL AGAIN PLEASE CALL AT WOULD LIKE ASPECTION. MESSAGE: ma y„ g 62 47,-- d TAKEN BY: 1 , �"' � a e t _ e .4,1 v . jo r 4.4.-eroe. TO /'� at_ . DATE /'o2e -2. T (`ME /o ..?Q CALLER _ Allte. / a ADDRESS 7 WILL CALL N PLEASE CALL AT WOULD LIKE INSPECTION: (J MESSAGE: ice., / ' ,-)( i/A �1.' / tiO ---. ee-0--$/z.e,,a • _ e,./2:44 :70.-t.....e-- '..,„e../4/ .etoelf,-"--e-c---- TAKEN BY: ----2.--c______ TO DATE / /- 7/ TINE //. c CALLER ® Gz) G:z._ _, ADDRESS 1 WILL CALL AGAIN PLEASE CALL AT WOULD LIKE INSPECTION: kiESSAGE ; i TAKE.L! BY: '' a■e■ /, lairez-e ggibt%2,,,e;e_14 c9-(, / °--'— 7 totix 01-(1e-A4 /2t- /-%e—%J gte?1)4