Anonymous housing complaint irks Woodford Ave. homeowners
Woodford Ave. homeowners Gary and Marianne Zimmerman are not satisfied with the quality of communication they received from city hall involving a dispute over alleged housing violations. They filed a complaint in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in an effort to gain access to city documents related to the situation.
According to the Zimmerman’s account of events (see a .PDF of their court filing), they lodged a noise complaint against their neighbor on September 23, 2009. A little more than a month later, someone anonymously complained to the Division of Housing and Building – in retaliation, the Zimmerman’s suspect – regarding the condition of their property. The complaint triggered a city inspection.
The city’s October 29, 2009 exterior property inspection identified six relatively minor issues that needed to be corrected: remove debris/unsightly material from the southwest corner of the yard area, maintain landscaping on property, repair rear gable, maintain siding at front eave, replace missing slate on the roof, and paint weathered lattice.
The correction notice noted two areas – the debris in the southwest corner of yard and the landscaping maintenance – that needed to be remediated by November 10, 2009. All remaining items needed to be corrected by December 1, 2009.
A couple of days later the Zimmermans sent a public records request to the city in an effort to determine the identity of their accuser. They also wanted to make a formal complaint against the housing inspector, who they believed entered their property without permission to conduct the inspection.
An excerpt from their letter:
“The acts are outrageous and abusive and an invasion of my privacy and clearly exceed the scope of the inspector’s authority. The actions of the inspector are bad enough that I felt the need to call and leave a message with the inspector that he is not allowed in my back yard to root around my back yard and search under my bushes. You can understand why I would be concerned that this inspector felt he had the right to root around in my back yard and look under my bushes. This was done when I was not present and when I was occupied helping settle the estate of my recently deceased father.”
The city’s law department replied that because the call was anonymous, they were unable to provide the name of the person who phoned in the complaint.
On November 18, 2009, the city issued the Zimmermans an order to appear in Lakewood Municipal Court for “failure to comply with a notice or neglect of maintenance” regarding the two minor violations that were supposed to have been fixed by November 10, 2009.
On that same day, Marianne Zimmerman wrote a letter of appeal to the mayor:
Ed Fitzgerald, Mayor
City of Lakewood
12650 Detroit Ave.
Lakewood, OH 440107Dear Ed:
I am enclosing a records request regarding the Correction Notice I received. I am sorry it had to come to this. It is obvious that the situation got way out of hand. It was a simple matter of a disgruntled neighbor making an anonymous and false complaint to your Building Department in retaliation for a noise complaint I made against him. He even admitted he made the complaint and admitted he had no proof to substantiate his complaint. How it ended up with a building inspector looking under by bushes in my backyard at some plant pots in winter storage, I don’t know. I am not sure, but I think that the inspector is ordering me to move my pots. Nobody will tell me exactly what the problem is. I think the inspector is complaining about my roof. I can tell you that we have our roof regularly inspected and the roofer said the roof was ok and we have experienced no problems at all.
I would hope that we could come to some resolution and the Correction Notice could be voided. I will admit that I was hurt and upset that the City would treat me in such a callous and indifferent fashion after we have been good and loyal residents for 11 years. We even fix things on our property without any outside prompting. We feel it is our duty to keep our house in good repair. It seems to me that this inspection was in retaliation for a noise complaint we made against the tenant at 17465 Woodford. The landlord’s agent even admitted to making the complaint that prompted the inspection and even admitted he had no evidence to back up the complaint. This is nothing more than a neighbor dispute that got way out of control.
I just want this problem resolved and the inspection withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Marianne Zimmerman
17463 Woodford Ave.
The Zimmermans sent a second public records request to the city on the following day seeking the name of their accuser, photographic documentation of the items identified in the correction notice, and a host of other documents governing policies of the home inspection process.
The Zimmermans next filed a request on November 30, 2009 in Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court to get an order restraining the city from enforcing the notice of correction. They also asked the court to compel the city to satisfy their prior public records request.
The court declined to issue the restraining order regarding the notice of correction. The city provided some photographs related to the corrections notice, but the Zimmermans said it did not satisfy their public records request. Their case remains active in county court.
Having pled not guilty to the city’s housing-related charges, the Zimmermans face trial in Lakewood Municipal Court on January 11th.
Due to the ongoing legal proceedings, the Zimmermans declined to comment on their situation.
Tags: