HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter (violations) - 01/02/1992 CITY HALL
215 Church Avenue •
P. 0. Box 1130
Oshkosh, 54902-1130 City of Oshkosh
FILE COPY
QIHKOIH
JANUARY 2, 1992
• DOUGLAS K. MARONE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
219 WASHINGTON AVENUE
OSHKOSH, WI., )4902 -0617
DEAR MR. MARONE:
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 16, 1991, - I HAVE RECEIVED
SEVERAL COMPLAINTS FROM THE PRESENT AND PREVIM NEIGHBORS CONCERNING
THE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR OF THE DWELLING AT 1L1 MONROE STREET.
� r
DURING AN INSPECTION FOLLOWING THE SECOND COMPLAINT, I NOTED SEVERE
DAMAGE TO THE CONCRETE AND POSSIBLY THE FOUNDATION AT THE REAR OF
THE DWELLING. THE CONCRETE HAD COLLAPSED DOWNWARD AND UNDER THE
DWELLING WHICH MAY HAVE EFFECTED THE FOUNDATION OR A FAULTY FOUND-
ATION MAY HAVE ALLOWED THE CONCRETE TO COLLAPSE. AN INSPECTION
WAS REQUESTED TO ASSURE THAT NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE - HAD -BEEN CAUSED
TO THE FOUNDATION OF THE DWELLING BY THE COLLAPSING CONCRETE AND/
OR TO ASSURE THAT THE FOUNDATION HAD NOT ALLOWED THE CONCRETE TO
COLLAPSE.
IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT. EXCESSIVE AND_IMPROPER ROOF - REPAIRS HAVE
BEEN MADE TO THE ROOFING ON THE SOUTH OF THE DWELLING. THE COM-
PLAINT I RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBORS INDICATED THAT THERE WAS RAIN
WATER INFILTRATION INTO THE ROOF STRUCTURE AND SUBSEQUENTLY INTO
THE INTERIOR OF THE DWELLING. DUE TO THE RAINWATER INFILTRATION
AND POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE ROOF STRUCTURE WHICH MIGHT AFFECT THE
SAFETY OF THE OCCUPANTS, AN INSPECTION WAS REQUESTED TO ASSURE THAT
THE ROOF STRUCTURE WAS IN A SOUND CONDITION AND ABLE TO SUPPORT THE
LOADS WHICH MIGHT BE PLACED UPON IT. (SNOW).
AGAIN THE VIOLATIONS NOTED AND FOR WHICH THE INSPECTION WAS-REQUEST-
ED ARE NOT REQUIREMENTS OF THE HOUSING CODE, BUT INSTEAD ARE REQUIRE-
MENTS OF THE UNIFORM DWELLING CODE FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.
IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THE APPREHENSION WHICH MR. MUELLER IS PUTTING
FORTH TO HINDER AND INSPECTION INDICATES THAT THERE -MAY BE SERIOUS
DEFICIENCIES INSIDE WHICH HE DOES NOT WISH AN INSPECTOR TO SEE OR
REPAIR. IF THE DWELLING IS UP TO CODE AND IN A SAFE AND CLEAN
CONDITION, THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON TO REFUSE AN INSPECTION. AS
THE OWNER OF THE DWELLING MR. MUELLER IS REQUIRED TO BE KNOWLEDGABLE
OF THE CURRENT CODES AND KEEP THE DWELLING IN A CODE COMPLIANT CON-
DITION.
AN INSPECTION DATE IS STILL REQUESTED SO THAT THE IN
INSPECTOR CAN CHECK THE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. w rr
SINCERELY, BRUCE l � I � f � ( `l ^t
HOUSING INSPECTOR