Our Story: Ethics & City Government
The photo was taken in the backyard of our 1920s bungalow, our home of 25 years, after seven weeks of trying to call attention to building code violations--and being repeatedly ignored and misled by City officials.
Besides being an invasion of privacy, this building's setback was in violation, as is its size. It is also in violation of fire access codes. It is now a rental property. The open balcony, aside from invading privacy, provides no barrier to noise.
Besides being an invasion of privacy, this building's setback was in violation, as is its size. It is also in violation of fire access codes. It is now a rental property. The open balcony, aside from invading privacy, provides no barrier to noise.
Ethical Considerations:
At the end of Part I, Mr. Peter Wysocki, the Director of our Colorado Springs Planning Department, had not admitted or addressed, in writing, the illegal size and setback issues with a building that had been constructed next door to our home of over 25 years. This building's violations had to be shown to him through our research and calculations.
In Part II, and after four long months, Wysocki finally admits there's a problem with codes that the homeowner/builder will be required to address., the City has apparently manipulated the rules to fit two agendas: an agenda of covering up their mistakes, and an agenda of helping a builder who has blatantly violated building codes and submitted fraudulent paperwork on a building project. We now believe the "solution" that they are championing is, in itself, illegal.
This third section under "Our Story" concerns ETHICS.
Below are two letters to Wysocki addressing the many ethical concerns in regard to his treatment of this matter. Mr. Wysocki, so far, has never addressed any of our questions on ethics.
Homeowners should be aware of the ethical standards that these professionals, who are paid by our tax dollars, are supposed to adhere to.
The American Institute of Certified Planners is APA's professional institute and provides the only nationwide, independent verification of planners' qualifications. Mr. Wysocki is a member of AICP.
In Part II, and after four long months, Wysocki finally admits there's a problem with codes that the homeowner/builder will be required to address., the City has apparently manipulated the rules to fit two agendas: an agenda of covering up their mistakes, and an agenda of helping a builder who has blatantly violated building codes and submitted fraudulent paperwork on a building project. We now believe the "solution" that they are championing is, in itself, illegal.
This third section under "Our Story" concerns ETHICS.
Below are two letters to Wysocki addressing the many ethical concerns in regard to his treatment of this matter. Mr. Wysocki, so far, has never addressed any of our questions on ethics.
Homeowners should be aware of the ethical standards that these professionals, who are paid by our tax dollars, are supposed to adhere to.
The American Institute of Certified Planners is APA's professional institute and provides the only nationwide, independent verification of planners' qualifications. Mr. Wysocki is a member of AICP.
Tue 7/11, 3:29 PM
Wysocki, Peter ([email protected])
Mr. Wysocki,
We wanted to express our disappointment with our meeting yesterday, July 10th at 3 p.m.; a meeting that we initiated last week. We believe that you have ample and solid evidence that Sam Acosta's motives from the beginning of his A.D.U. building adventure have had serious unethical aspects, yet it seems that you are intent, for some unknown reason, on working with him and crafting a solution that will make "him a little unhappy, and [us] a little unhappy."
This is unacceptable. We are the injured party here, Mr. Wysocki; not only our family personally, but all those negatively affected by this building in our neighborhood. We will not compromise with an unethical builder who has attempted fraud. Neither should our city's Planning Department. Sandra and I and a few others have spent the last two and a half months doing Planning's job, finding the violations that were covered up. A slap on the wrist for Mr. Acosta will not do. We have shown how Mr. Acosta's building will have a negative impact on our property values, our historic neighborhood's architectural integrity, and our personal quality of life.
To quote the American Planning Association's Statement of Ethical Principles on serving the public interest:
#6: "Pay special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions and the long range consequences of present actions."
This is so important, as this decision not only impacts one of the oldest neighborhoods in the state of Colorado (did you know that this part of town, which was once Colorado City, was the original capital of the Colorado territory, before Denver?), but it will impact families who have lived in this neighborhood for decades, and future inhabitants. Perhaps more importantly, this will also have an impact on Mr. Acosta's future building escapades. At age 30 and with this as his second building project, what he learns here will be instrumental in how he moves forward in life. If he is allowed to repeatedly dupe both the Planning Department and his neighbors and get by with it - what message does this give him on the consequences of actions, on personal accountability in our city, on attempting to defraud? What message does this send to others? This sets a dangerous precedent that you can put incorrect information on your building plans without worrying about consequences.
To reiterate, Mr. Acosta, who works as an engineer and who holds a college degree:
1) willfully and knowingly submitted paperwork and built an A.D.U. structure that exceeded the 750 square foot maximum limit by almost 100 square feet. We originally brought up our suspicion of this in a letter to you way back on March 1, 2017 [This date was incorrect, a typo-it was May 2, 2017], and that question was ignored for almost two months. We believe there is ample proof that Mr. Acosta knew about this violation and continued to build.
And, again, since more square footage translates into a higher property value, whether in resale or rental, this constitutes the intent to defraud. Not only the Planning Department, but fraud in the calculation of property taxes to our city.
2) willfully and knowingly made the setback for this structure a foot too close to a neighbor's property line.
3) attempted to deceive us, his neighbors of over five years, in mediation. After we protested his privacy-stealing, noise-intruding motel balcony four feet from our backyard property line, we, not Mr. Acosta, suggested mediation. Mr. Acosta agreed, then helped Sara Poe (now Sara Vaas) at CONO draft a letter to us. (Attached.) The paperwork said that he would cover this balcony with "a wall of sorts". A "wall of sorts", Mr. Wysocki, how is that for engineering precision? Mr. Acosta then went to Regional and added a plan for a pergola on his A.D.U. ("a structure for vines or climbing plants"), and has since installed easily-removable wood panels on that pergola. NOTE: Mediation fell through at that time because a pergola is not a permanent wall and was never designed to be one. This was clearly an attempt to placate neighbors through yet another deceit, as this "wall of sorts" could be dismantled at any time. Furthermore, Mr. Acosta was well aware at this time - we had written to him telling him - that we thought his building violated code in both setback and size.
Because of these multiple illegal and deceitful actions, we feel that Mr. Acosta's building should be completely dismantled. To do less would be unethical and would set a horrible and unacceptable precedent for other A.D.U. builders. Illegal actions must have consequences. This is not just about us, Mr. Wysocki, this is about ethics and public trust in the Planning Department.
Sincerely,
Andrew and Sandra Knauf
(719) 473-9237
http://www.protectourwestside.com
Wysocki, Peter ([email protected])
Mr. Wysocki,
We wanted to express our disappointment with our meeting yesterday, July 10th at 3 p.m.; a meeting that we initiated last week. We believe that you have ample and solid evidence that Sam Acosta's motives from the beginning of his A.D.U. building adventure have had serious unethical aspects, yet it seems that you are intent, for some unknown reason, on working with him and crafting a solution that will make "him a little unhappy, and [us] a little unhappy."
This is unacceptable. We are the injured party here, Mr. Wysocki; not only our family personally, but all those negatively affected by this building in our neighborhood. We will not compromise with an unethical builder who has attempted fraud. Neither should our city's Planning Department. Sandra and I and a few others have spent the last two and a half months doing Planning's job, finding the violations that were covered up. A slap on the wrist for Mr. Acosta will not do. We have shown how Mr. Acosta's building will have a negative impact on our property values, our historic neighborhood's architectural integrity, and our personal quality of life.
To quote the American Planning Association's Statement of Ethical Principles on serving the public interest:
#6: "Pay special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions and the long range consequences of present actions."
This is so important, as this decision not only impacts one of the oldest neighborhoods in the state of Colorado (did you know that this part of town, which was once Colorado City, was the original capital of the Colorado territory, before Denver?), but it will impact families who have lived in this neighborhood for decades, and future inhabitants. Perhaps more importantly, this will also have an impact on Mr. Acosta's future building escapades. At age 30 and with this as his second building project, what he learns here will be instrumental in how he moves forward in life. If he is allowed to repeatedly dupe both the Planning Department and his neighbors and get by with it - what message does this give him on the consequences of actions, on personal accountability in our city, on attempting to defraud? What message does this send to others? This sets a dangerous precedent that you can put incorrect information on your building plans without worrying about consequences.
To reiterate, Mr. Acosta, who works as an engineer and who holds a college degree:
1) willfully and knowingly submitted paperwork and built an A.D.U. structure that exceeded the 750 square foot maximum limit by almost 100 square feet. We originally brought up our suspicion of this in a letter to you way back on March 1, 2017 [This date was incorrect, a typo-it was May 2, 2017], and that question was ignored for almost two months. We believe there is ample proof that Mr. Acosta knew about this violation and continued to build.
And, again, since more square footage translates into a higher property value, whether in resale or rental, this constitutes the intent to defraud. Not only the Planning Department, but fraud in the calculation of property taxes to our city.
2) willfully and knowingly made the setback for this structure a foot too close to a neighbor's property line.
3) attempted to deceive us, his neighbors of over five years, in mediation. After we protested his privacy-stealing, noise-intruding motel balcony four feet from our backyard property line, we, not Mr. Acosta, suggested mediation. Mr. Acosta agreed, then helped Sara Poe (now Sara Vaas) at CONO draft a letter to us. (Attached.) The paperwork said that he would cover this balcony with "a wall of sorts". A "wall of sorts", Mr. Wysocki, how is that for engineering precision? Mr. Acosta then went to Regional and added a plan for a pergola on his A.D.U. ("a structure for vines or climbing plants"), and has since installed easily-removable wood panels on that pergola. NOTE: Mediation fell through at that time because a pergola is not a permanent wall and was never designed to be one. This was clearly an attempt to placate neighbors through yet another deceit, as this "wall of sorts" could be dismantled at any time. Furthermore, Mr. Acosta was well aware at this time - we had written to him telling him - that we thought his building violated code in both setback and size.
Because of these multiple illegal and deceitful actions, we feel that Mr. Acosta's building should be completely dismantled. To do less would be unethical and would set a horrible and unacceptable precedent for other A.D.U. builders. Illegal actions must have consequences. This is not just about us, Mr. Wysocki, this is about ethics and public trust in the Planning Department.
Sincerely,
Andrew and Sandra Knauf
(719) 473-9237
http://www.protectourwestside.com
Eleven days pass with no response from Mr. Wysocki - so we write another letter. In those eleven days we have researched the ethical issues in regard to this situation and our city's Planning Department. What we discover is that city planners are supposed to adhere to a code of ethics. We feel that our City Planning Director has not.
July 21, 2017
Mr. Wysocki,
It has now been eleven days since our meeting about the Acosta property. We wrote to you the next day (July 11th) stating that we were adamant that this illegal building be torn down. We also expressed concerns over your lack of action on this problem for over two months.
The first section of the American Planning Association's Code of Ethics covers city planner’s “Overall Responsibility to the Public”. It says to “achieve high standards of professional integrity, proficiency, and knowledge” that the following principles are aspired to:
a) We shall always be conscious of the rights of others.
b) We shall have special concern for the long-range consequences of present actions.
c) We shall pay special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions.
d) We shall provide timely, adequate, clear, and accurate information on planning issues to all affected persons and to governmental decision makers.
e) We shall give people the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of plans and programs that may affect them. Participation should be broad enough to include those who lack formal organization or influence.
f) We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs.
g) We shall promote excellence of design and endeavor to conserve and preserve the integrity and heritage of the natural and built environment.
h) We shall deal fairly with all participants in the planning process. Those of us who are public officials or employees shall also deal evenhandedly with all planning process participants.
It is clear, from our perspective, that you are violating this organization's ethical guidelines by skirting your responsibility to us, members of the public.
In particular, you have shown zero concern for (b) the consequences of present actions. This is an illegal building, wrong for this historic neighborhood, completely out of scale with surrounding buildings on this entire block of beautiful historic buildings. It is a building that imposes, like no other we have seen in this neighborhood of thousands (we have done the research, we have driven the back alleys for miles this spring and summer) on other property owners’ right to privacy with a balcony structure that is four feet from a property line. (NOTE: The Acosta's pergola-with-removable-boards, installed in the last two weeks, is a joke.) We have seen nothing like this anywhere. This is an outlandishly-sized two-story house, built to be an Airbnb-type motel, behind a one-story house in our city's oldest historic district! There has been no sense to this building from the first day it was framed. Literally dozens of people on the Westside have expressed shock that this building was “allowed to go up in the first place.” (We can supply a list if you like.)
You have not (c) paid special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions (see above), and you have not (e) given people the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of plans that may affect them. We tried, from the moment the framing was started to get through to you on this. You ignored us.
You have also not (g) promoted excellence of design, as you seem determined to let an illegally oversized structure that does not fit in with the historic character of a century-old neighborhood stand. This a violation of the integrity and the heritage of both the natural and built environment here in our historic Old Colorado City district.
Perhaps most frustrating, however, has been your failure to (d) provide timely, adequate, clear and accurate information on planning issues.
Once again, today, it is us who have to reach out to you, as we have done about a dozen times in the last 10 weeks. If you would have responded correctly and fully to our concerns at the very beginning (our first letter sent to your department was on May 2, 2017), the issue of this illegal building would have been caught and recognized then and this situation might be resolved by now. Instead, you responded first to Pam Zubeck's article in The Independent, rather than directly to us. In this article, you provided inaccurate information to us, and to the public, by implying that the structure adhered to all of the Planning Department's guidelines. It does not. You know this.
Between May 2nd and June 22nd we reached out to you time and time again via letters and phone calls. All our correspondence was ignored. The first time you responded in writing to our concerns was on June 22nd (in response to an email sent June 14th). In your letter, you once again insisted that the Acosta's structure was not in violation of any building codes and you declined our second request for a stop order. Not only were you incorrect about the setback, you completely failed to address the issue that the building is illegally-sized and that the numbers on the plans are incorrect.
We would have to wait until June 28th, nearly two full months after our concerns were brought to your attention, for you to admit, via phone conversation, that this structure was in violation. Before that day all we got from you was gas-lighting and avoidance.
It is clear that the information that you have provided has not been timely; it has not been adequate; it has not been clear; and most importantly, it has not been accurate.
You have completely failed to uphold your ethical responsibility and you have failed to do your job. We hope this pattern does not continue because our city’s tax-payers deserve better.
Now that this building has been proven to be illegal, we are still waiting for action on your part. We hope you will uphold your ethical responsibility as a member of the Planning Department and have this structure torn down immediately.
If you would like to read up on the AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, you will find the information here: https://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode.htm We have only looked at a small part of it here, as far as the responsibility of city officials.
AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
www.planning.org
AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Adopted March 19, 2005 Effective June 1, 2005 Revised April 1, 2016. We, professional planners, who are members of the ...
We hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Andrew and Sandra Knauf
(719) 473-9237
Mr. Wysocki,
It has now been eleven days since our meeting about the Acosta property. We wrote to you the next day (July 11th) stating that we were adamant that this illegal building be torn down. We also expressed concerns over your lack of action on this problem for over two months.
The first section of the American Planning Association's Code of Ethics covers city planner’s “Overall Responsibility to the Public”. It says to “achieve high standards of professional integrity, proficiency, and knowledge” that the following principles are aspired to:
a) We shall always be conscious of the rights of others.
b) We shall have special concern for the long-range consequences of present actions.
c) We shall pay special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions.
d) We shall provide timely, adequate, clear, and accurate information on planning issues to all affected persons and to governmental decision makers.
e) We shall give people the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of plans and programs that may affect them. Participation should be broad enough to include those who lack formal organization or influence.
f) We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs.
g) We shall promote excellence of design and endeavor to conserve and preserve the integrity and heritage of the natural and built environment.
h) We shall deal fairly with all participants in the planning process. Those of us who are public officials or employees shall also deal evenhandedly with all planning process participants.
It is clear, from our perspective, that you are violating this organization's ethical guidelines by skirting your responsibility to us, members of the public.
In particular, you have shown zero concern for (b) the consequences of present actions. This is an illegal building, wrong for this historic neighborhood, completely out of scale with surrounding buildings on this entire block of beautiful historic buildings. It is a building that imposes, like no other we have seen in this neighborhood of thousands (we have done the research, we have driven the back alleys for miles this spring and summer) on other property owners’ right to privacy with a balcony structure that is four feet from a property line. (NOTE: The Acosta's pergola-with-removable-boards, installed in the last two weeks, is a joke.) We have seen nothing like this anywhere. This is an outlandishly-sized two-story house, built to be an Airbnb-type motel, behind a one-story house in our city's oldest historic district! There has been no sense to this building from the first day it was framed. Literally dozens of people on the Westside have expressed shock that this building was “allowed to go up in the first place.” (We can supply a list if you like.)
You have not (c) paid special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions (see above), and you have not (e) given people the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of plans that may affect them. We tried, from the moment the framing was started to get through to you on this. You ignored us.
You have also not (g) promoted excellence of design, as you seem determined to let an illegally oversized structure that does not fit in with the historic character of a century-old neighborhood stand. This a violation of the integrity and the heritage of both the natural and built environment here in our historic Old Colorado City district.
Perhaps most frustrating, however, has been your failure to (d) provide timely, adequate, clear and accurate information on planning issues.
Once again, today, it is us who have to reach out to you, as we have done about a dozen times in the last 10 weeks. If you would have responded correctly and fully to our concerns at the very beginning (our first letter sent to your department was on May 2, 2017), the issue of this illegal building would have been caught and recognized then and this situation might be resolved by now. Instead, you responded first to Pam Zubeck's article in The Independent, rather than directly to us. In this article, you provided inaccurate information to us, and to the public, by implying that the structure adhered to all of the Planning Department's guidelines. It does not. You know this.
Between May 2nd and June 22nd we reached out to you time and time again via letters and phone calls. All our correspondence was ignored. The first time you responded in writing to our concerns was on June 22nd (in response to an email sent June 14th). In your letter, you once again insisted that the Acosta's structure was not in violation of any building codes and you declined our second request for a stop order. Not only were you incorrect about the setback, you completely failed to address the issue that the building is illegally-sized and that the numbers on the plans are incorrect.
We would have to wait until June 28th, nearly two full months after our concerns were brought to your attention, for you to admit, via phone conversation, that this structure was in violation. Before that day all we got from you was gas-lighting and avoidance.
It is clear that the information that you have provided has not been timely; it has not been adequate; it has not been clear; and most importantly, it has not been accurate.
You have completely failed to uphold your ethical responsibility and you have failed to do your job. We hope this pattern does not continue because our city’s tax-payers deserve better.
Now that this building has been proven to be illegal, we are still waiting for action on your part. We hope you will uphold your ethical responsibility as a member of the Planning Department and have this structure torn down immediately.
If you would like to read up on the AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, you will find the information here: https://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode.htm We have only looked at a small part of it here, as far as the responsibility of city officials.
AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
www.planning.org
AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Adopted March 19, 2005 Effective June 1, 2005 Revised April 1, 2016. We, professional planners, who are members of the ...
We hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Andrew and Sandra Knauf
(719) 473-9237
Reply
Tue 7/25, 9:37 AM
Mr. and Mrs. Knauf,
Thank you for your comments. As I have indicated to you, the City has “flagged” the building permit to hold the issuance a certificate of occupancy for the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) until the finished livable square footage of the ADU is properly resolved. I would like to again reiterate that the second story balcony is NOT in violation of City Code as the Code does not prohibit second story balconies or decks.
Sincerely,
PETER WYSOCKI, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development | City of Colorado Springs, CO
30 South Nevada, Street | PO Box 1575 Mail Code 155 | Colorado Springs, CO 80901
Tel: 719.385.5347
Tue 7/25, 9:37 AM
Mr. and Mrs. Knauf,
Thank you for your comments. As I have indicated to you, the City has “flagged” the building permit to hold the issuance a certificate of occupancy for the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) until the finished livable square footage of the ADU is properly resolved. I would like to again reiterate that the second story balcony is NOT in violation of City Code as the Code does not prohibit second story balconies or decks.
Sincerely,
PETER WYSOCKI, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development | City of Colorado Springs, CO
30 South Nevada, Street | PO Box 1575 Mail Code 155 | Colorado Springs, CO 80901
Tel: 719.385.5347
Important Note: This will be the first time Mr. Wysocki uses the term "finished livable square footage of the ADU". This will come into play when we find out what the "resolution" will be from the Planning Department's office (Part II).
July 31, 2017
Dear Mr. Wysocki,
As is your habit, you have not addressed most of what was in our previous letter. You especially avoided answering any of the very important ethical issues we raised and your responsibility in regard to these issues. Instead, after three solid months of trying to get straight answers and action in regard to this illegal building, we get neither—only a three-sentence reply that everything’s still in limbo and that you are still taking no responsibility for issues that go beyond city codes.
This is completely unacceptable.
For starters: We understand the codes. We know that the balcony is “not in violation of City Code.” That is not the issue.
The issue is the building is ethically nonconforming in ways that have been detailed in other correspondence, ad nauseam. This includes the intrusive, privacy-stealing balcony. This includes the four-foot setback from our property line. This includes the fact that this is a two-story building behind a one-story building in an established historic district. This includes the fact that this building is out of scale in regard to all other buildings on our street. This includes the fact that this is intended as a short-term rental property with a balcony overlooking private homeowners’ properties and it will lower the property values of our homes! We challenge you to find an A.D.U. like this anywhere in this city that impacts a residential property in a historic district like this one impacts ours. It does not exist.
Your job is to not only ensure that codes are followed, but, as a leader, to go further, to “promote excellence of design and endeavor to conserve and preserve the integrity and heritage of the natural and built environment”. So far, you have not done this.
You are setting precedence here, Mr. Wysocki. According to the American Planning Association’s Code of Ethics, which covers city planners’ “Overall Responsibility to the Public”, your ethical responsibility is to have “special concern for the long-range consequence of present actions”. So far you have shown no such concern. This is a structure which, if left standing as is, will be a black mark on this neighborhood’s aesthetic and on your career.
The only way to get this situation “properly resolved” is to have this building torn down. It is illegal. It was approved through deception by the homeowner-builder. This structure, by all indications, and of which we have ample proof, was an attempt to defraud the City of Colorado Springs. Again, to remind you, when this issue of being oversized was brought up, in early May, THREE MONTHS AGO, both publicly (Colorado Springs Independent), and privately, we were met with stonewalling – both from you and the homeowner-builder. As homeowners affected by this building, we have had to find the “mistakes” of both the builder and the Planning Department. It is almost unbelievable what our family has had to go through to protect our property and our neighborhood, the hundreds of hours we have had to spend on this to try to get the City to do the right thing. To make allowances for this structure in any way, shape, or form is both a breach of ethics and a breach of the public trust.
Andrew and Sandra Knauf
Dear Mr. Wysocki,
As is your habit, you have not addressed most of what was in our previous letter. You especially avoided answering any of the very important ethical issues we raised and your responsibility in regard to these issues. Instead, after three solid months of trying to get straight answers and action in regard to this illegal building, we get neither—only a three-sentence reply that everything’s still in limbo and that you are still taking no responsibility for issues that go beyond city codes.
This is completely unacceptable.
For starters: We understand the codes. We know that the balcony is “not in violation of City Code.” That is not the issue.
The issue is the building is ethically nonconforming in ways that have been detailed in other correspondence, ad nauseam. This includes the intrusive, privacy-stealing balcony. This includes the four-foot setback from our property line. This includes the fact that this is a two-story building behind a one-story building in an established historic district. This includes the fact that this building is out of scale in regard to all other buildings on our street. This includes the fact that this is intended as a short-term rental property with a balcony overlooking private homeowners’ properties and it will lower the property values of our homes! We challenge you to find an A.D.U. like this anywhere in this city that impacts a residential property in a historic district like this one impacts ours. It does not exist.
Your job is to not only ensure that codes are followed, but, as a leader, to go further, to “promote excellence of design and endeavor to conserve and preserve the integrity and heritage of the natural and built environment”. So far, you have not done this.
You are setting precedence here, Mr. Wysocki. According to the American Planning Association’s Code of Ethics, which covers city planners’ “Overall Responsibility to the Public”, your ethical responsibility is to have “special concern for the long-range consequence of present actions”. So far you have shown no such concern. This is a structure which, if left standing as is, will be a black mark on this neighborhood’s aesthetic and on your career.
The only way to get this situation “properly resolved” is to have this building torn down. It is illegal. It was approved through deception by the homeowner-builder. This structure, by all indications, and of which we have ample proof, was an attempt to defraud the City of Colorado Springs. Again, to remind you, when this issue of being oversized was brought up, in early May, THREE MONTHS AGO, both publicly (Colorado Springs Independent), and privately, we were met with stonewalling – both from you and the homeowner-builder. As homeowners affected by this building, we have had to find the “mistakes” of both the builder and the Planning Department. It is almost unbelievable what our family has had to go through to protect our property and our neighborhood, the hundreds of hours we have had to spend on this to try to get the City to do the right thing. To make allowances for this structure in any way, shape, or form is both a breach of ethics and a breach of the public trust.
Andrew and Sandra Knauf
No response to the above letter. Over three more weeks pass making it four solid months that we've been dealing with this, writing letter after letter to Wysocki and sending cc's to City Council (no response from anyone, except one form letter from the mayor's office that they would respond, and then they never did).
(Continued in Part II.)
(Continued in Part II.)
Fellow Westsiders and other Colorado Springs friends/homeowners:
Perhaps then you could do us (and all neighborhoods) a huge favor and give Mr. Wysocki's office a call. (719) 385-5347 or send him an email at [email protected] to tell him what you think of the operations of his office. It'll just take a minute. This is all that it's about. Showing that we care about our community, and that we expect our City officials do their jobs. Thank you.
