Jefferson Avenue looking northeast at the Brookbank walking path, October 24, 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:27:29 -0500
To: "Fieldman, David" <DFieldman@downers.us>
From: John Schofield <JohnSchofield@gsb.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Nelson Meadow Code Violations
Situation deteriorating, no maintenance.
If there are hazards to the public, why isn't the property owner required to remove them? If this fence is supposed to exclude vehicle traffic, why is the former driveway still unfenced and the partial fence unmaintained? If this is a construction site -- and we do not accept that it is -- why isn't the Village enforcing ALL of its regulations relating to construction sites?
Time to face the fact that this silt fence is protecting nobody, it serves no public purpose, it's just an eyesore and an offense to the neighborhood.
Please cite the owner and require the fence's removal!
--John Schofield
1125 Jefferson Avenue
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630-810-1403
Jefferson Avenue looking northeast at the Brookbank walking path, October 24,
2005
----------
At 12:08 PM 9/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:
Sorry for the delay in responding to your questions about the code violations at Nelson Meadow. As you know, the Village sent a code compliance letter to the property owner stating that the temporary sign and silt fence were in violation of Village Code. Upon receipt of the letter, the owner removed the temporary sign. In response to the assertion that the silt fence was in violation of Village Code, the owner sent a letter to the Village asking that he be allowed to maintain the silt fence (see attached letter). Mr. Andersen stated that the fence is providing some level of security and safety for the property. He specifically stated that the fence is acting as a deterrent to vehicles entering the property.
Section 7.4 of the Village Code states that one of the duties of the Building Official is "to secure the necessary safeguards during construction."
Therefore, I have approved Mr. Andersen's request to allow the fence to remain in place as a necessary safeguard during construction.
Several factors were weighed in making this decision including but not limited to:
1) The property can be considered a construction site with the recent
issuance of a demolition permit and the pending development of the site.
2) The silt fence was required to be installed in conjunction with the issuance
of the demolition permit.
3) A silt fence will be required to be installed prior to the commencement of
any site development activities.
4) The property owner has filed a complete petition for a public hearing before
the Plan Commission related to the proposed development. A final decision
regarding the proposed development is likely to be provided within the next 60
to 90 days.
5) The silt fence is temporary in nature.
6) The silt fence does not pose an immediate threat to the value of surrounding
properties or to the safety of the neighborhood.
7) The silt fence is discouraging trespassing on the subject property.
John, I understand your position that the fence does not comply with Village Code. You know that the Village Staff strives to provide excellent customer service to all of our customers (both residents and developers). Given the history of this case and factors discussed above, I believe this decision is sound. Should the Village Council deny the development or if the silt fence poses a threat to the neighborhood, I will direct Mr. Andersen to remove the fence.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.