Criminal Trespass, Due Process, and Ordinance shortcuts... No problem says the city

[soundspawn]

Tents don't have foundations.

It's a "Membrane Structure" by 2009 definitions and from what I can tell it is a "Canopy" for 2010+:
A permanent roofed unenclosed structure that may be free-standing or be partially attached to a building, for the purpose of providing shelter; typically used for sheltering patrons on foot and/or in motor vehicles; does not include a completely enclosed structure. Outside of this definition (in Article 6 - definitions), the word "canopy" appears in two places, Article 3 (community development standards, talking about tree canopies on streets), and Article 5 (variance to street tree requirements). I haven't found where a canopy is even enforced as an Accessory Structure which is what they argue.

I have three walls with a door on the front wall and it sits near my house so it's not practical to squeeze between buildings from the front (again a hand can fit just fine, a body not so much). The back yard however you can walk right in as this structure sticks out past the end of my house so the missing wall is very apparent.

Find another lawyer.

I was told I could beat it via attorney but it will cost about $3,000, and while I have a great case for a civil rights violation it would cost about as much in litigation as I would be awarded. The Attorney actually gave me a few codes to cite, coached me on what to say, and said "you'll do just fine on the citations, you don't need an attorney for this."

I would say a verbal okey-dokey would not suffice (even if the okey-dokeyer testified) to overcome building codes and statutes. But other than that, I agree with Carl.

I'm on the fence on that part, I chose to read it as verbally okay'ing something that really was okay. I think you however are pointing out that a City Planner can not give you a verbal okay to, for example, encroach a property line (because it is forbidden by a code/statute). If I understand you both correctly then you are both right and I believe I fall in to the former situation.

 

[CdwJava]

I would say a verbal okey-dokey would not suffice (even if the okey-dokeyer testified) to overcome building codes and statutes. But other than that, I agree with Carl.

I wholly agree that it would not suffice. I am just wondering if he even got THAT!

 

[soundspawn]

I wholly agree that it would not suffice. I am just wondering if he even got THAT!

Yes I did, and the City Attorney as well as the City Planner have acknowledged that I did. They however say that I either received permission for A and built B (B being more grand than what I was approved to build) or I built A then "significantly improved" it which would remove me from the Nonconforming Structures protection.

It really is the same structure they approved, and in the exact place they approved it. I did not improve it at all, and I checked the "Significant Improvements" definition in their code (which essentially requires a value increase of at least 50% or expansion).

I appreciate the discussion taking place, but one question got passed over that I really want to touch on so I'm throwing it in another thread:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-rights-discrimination-law-101/legal-582605.html#post3083049

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

As the links are going to pages no longer there, it appears the city possibly thinks there is an issue. I would request a change of venue to another court,

 

[A#1Headache]

giving a headache is a wonderful thing

file criminal charges for attempted battery or battery for the shove it in his pocket thing, you ordered them off and the tresspassed without a warrent in violation of Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), criminal tresspass and attempted battery file charges, videotape any communications with adminstrative authorties, state actors actions is government action and is not considered private and open to recording, record it all, file criminal charges if possable, then get a good lawyer fo civil rights violations and file criminal charges for conspiracy to violate your civil rights if possible then sue.