Skip to content

Dispute over lake home construction

Vandalia’s building official is alleging that a couple building a home at Vandalia Lake has violated city ordinances as part of their home-building project.
The couple is claiming that they were unaware of any violations, contending that the city code is vague.
An alderman is hoping for a simple resolution to that dispute.
For the time being, Joe and Julie Withers are being allowed to only continue construction of their home and install rock to address a drainage issue.
The Vandalia Lake Committee met on Monday afternoon to hear from Building and Zoning Official Dan Barenfanger on the alleged violations, and from Joe and Julie Withers on their response to those allegations.
Barenfanger said that in building their home at 2122 Lake Hills Drive, the couple has had grading and excavation work done without a permit, and also is having an additional structure, a retention wall, without obtaining a permit.
Barenfanger issued a stop order on the Withers project, alleging violations to the following two sections of city code:
• 1) 11.06.020- Zone classifications.
Zone 1, Single-Family Residences.
Permitted Uses.
A. All lots within this Zone are to be used only for single-family residence purposes. Any lot may have a maximum of one structure of each of the following types:
(1) A residence meeting the criteria hereinafter specified in this title;
(2) Either a boathouse or a boat pier;
(3) A private garage for motor vehicles;
(4) A storage shed for maintenance and recreational equipment;
(5) A swimming pier or platform. No other structure or structures are permitted; and
(6) A fence or fences in conformance with Chapter 11 .06 of the Vandalia Zoning Ordinance at Section 11.06.070 Fences and Walls including references therein set forth.
• Z. No grading shall be done upon any residential lot, dredging of the Lake adjacent to any residential lot, nor shall any tree exceeding four (4) inches in diameter be cut or removed until plans for the grading, dredging or removal of the tree has been approved by the City unless waived by the Lake Committee and a written memorandum thereof prepared, signed by the
Chairman of the Lake Committee and maintained in a file of the Clerk of the City of Vandalia created for such purpose.
“They did not get building permit for moving dirt and installing a structure in or moving the dirt for that,” Barenfanger said.
“Had they submitted a permit it would not have been approved, it would have been denied, because of the two ordinances listed,” he said.
On the issue of the “structure,” Alderman Mike Hobler said he felt it is “almost more of a shoreline retention issue rather than a building.”
Barenfanger said, “No grading is to be done … unless it’s approved by the city.
“I call it a structure for lack of any other terms,” he said.
Barenfanger said that on a “stock pile of dirt” on the property, “rough estimate is 900 cubic yards – this is conservative.
“That’s a lot of dirt to be taken out of the hill,” he said.
Joe Withers said he was unaware of such rules on grading.
“If you have these expectations, why are they now, after the fact,” he said.
“There was no site visit done between you and I … ever. So, how am I, as the home builder, how am I to understand what your expections are of what is too much or what is not if I don’t have anything spelled out clearly to go by,” Withers said.
Withers said that other than the plans for the house, Barenfanger did not ask for any other plans for the property.
Alderman Andy Lester said, “So you assumed what you did was OK?”
Withers said that he has read the city code numerous times and is aware that he needed permits for building a boat dock, sewage system and any building.
“I gathered no where from this entire ordinance I needed a permit … for a retaining wall, landscaping,” he said.
Withers said that work was done included grading for a walkout basement, but Barenfanger contends “the basement hasn’t been excavated yet,” and that ordinarily, “they dig basements and do grading afterwards every day.”
Withers said part of the issue is his limited access to the property.
He also claimed that when they submitted the plan for the house, it included a walkout basement, and “that permit it was approved by you, on Nov. 30, with no further discussion, no site visits, no explanation of what the city’s or yours specifications on that are going to be.”
Barenfanger said that he would not have a site inspection until the concrete contractor called him in reference to the basement work.
“I did not expect to see anything between the sea wall and basement,” Barenfanger said.
City Attorney Ryan Connor said, “What I see is a grading violation and excessive uses beyond that plan.”
Lester said, “What’s pictured there is definitely a structure” under permitted uses.
Withers asked whether there is a definition of “structure.”
He said that they included the retention wall “for aesthetics, landscaping, making best use of the land we bought.
“It will be absolutely beautiful when it’s done and it’s going to add to and enhance what’s already out there. The surrounding neighbors, their places are beautiful – we simply want to add to it.
“We had not the least bit in mind of defying anybody, any ordinance, all of the above,” Withers said.
“We just simply were working on what we think is going to be a beautiful project in the end,” he said.
Hobler said he told them that no permit was needed for shoreline retention, but Barenfanger and City Administrator LaTisha Paslay said that it is.
“How’s a person to understand all of that?” Withers said. “Where’s it written? It’s just rolls off the tongue at the time?”
Barker said he agrees that the city has “been inconsistent over the years.”
“There’s got to be a simple solution to this,” Barker said. “They were unaware of it, it wasn’t done intentionally.
“They’re just trying to build a beautiful place,” he said, suggesting a fine.
“We can’t make them just tear this out,” Barker said.
Paslay said that the city has to “have some conformity … and protect the shoreline.”
She also said that if nothing is done in this instance, “You certainly will have people asking for forgiveness instead of permission.”
Barenfanger said that while he is “sure it’s going to be beautiful,” there are violations.
“I’m reading it – it’s black and white. It says, no structure,” Barenfanger said.
Lester said, “Dan has done his job – it’s a violation of the ordinance as it’s written.”
“And, I would have absolutely applied for those permits if I knew I needed them,” Withers said.
“There was never any indication from you that I needed any other permits,” he said, a point that Barenfanger disputed.
Connor said that construction has to stop, saying it’s his belief that the violations “are pretty severe.”
The lake committee is going to have to decide what kind of action, such as revoking the building permit, is taken or to allow this kind of structure going forward, he said.
“Further plans are needed to determine whether or not this (project) can continue,” Connor said, saying he didn’t think it was proper to make any decisions on the future at this point.
The wording of the code, Withers said, “is so vague it’s setting me up for failure.
“I want to work this out, I don’t want to take it to this level and he iron-fisted this to where we are now.”
Lester said he believes that there should be more discussion on this issue.
“Dan has got a job, and I think he’s done it. It is a violation – the lake committee needs to decide, how are we going to deal with it?” Lester said.
Barker said that any violations were “unintentional. I think we’re making a bigger deal out of this … we need just need to sit down and talk a solution.
“It’s done – what is our solution to the problem,” he said.
Connor said it’s his recommendation that, “It’s up to the committee to direct Dan what to do next, step by step.”
And, that’s what the committee decided.
Sandra Cearlock, a resident who was present for the meeting, suggested that the city put together an informational packet for those who lease lots, something that explains “what they can do and can’t do,” and who to contact with any issues.
Withers suggested that the city “clear up some of the vagueness (with the code) for us.”
The meeting ended with Paslay telling committee members that if someone approaches them about such an issue, they should refer them to Barenfanger, “so you don’t say one this and he another.”

 

Leave a Comment