The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLETTERS - 05-00037 - Little Academy Daycare - RemodelJodi Thornock 671 Dell Drive Rexburg Idaho,83440 Ronald Perry 375 East Lagoon Street Roosevelt, Utah 84066 February 29, 2004 Dear Mr. Perry, You were sold our home where we lived in the basement and operated a daycare. We were granted all the appropriate licenses and submitted to all the inspections we were required to. In order to obtain a business license there is a process that you have to go through. If we hadn't been through that process we would not have been able to get a business license much less renew it each year for the last 13 years. We were told by the city that the problems with the parking came up because you were expanding and changing the daycare. We were also told by the city that you had the means to expand the parking but you refused to do so. In another visit to city hall, I wasgiven a paper that said your expansion proposal is denied until approvable plans are submitted. There is nothing in our agreement that makes us liable for problems that arise from your expanding the daycare and not living there with your family. The inspections you had done following the purchase of our home were your choice. You told me that you asked the inspectors to come and tell you everything that was wrong with the building so you would not have to worry about something down the road while you were in living in Utah. Again a situation different than what we had with our family living in the basement and operating the daycare. We had a fire inspection and a health inspection in the summer of 2002. There was no problem and our daycare license was renewed. We also had a business license in 2002. You need to understand that you approached us about purchasing our property. You agreed to the purchase price. I thought it would be easier to let you have the daycare than to close it. With or without the daycare we would not have sold for under $200,000. It would have been financially impossible for us to leave for less than $200,000. You stated you would quit harassing us if we reimbursed you for 50,000. If we did that, it would make the purchases price 150,000. We would not have sold it to you for that price therefore we would still be operating the daycare and receiving income from it. If you wish us to reimburse you for 50,000 then you need to reimburse us 5,000 a month for income lost while you were operating Little Academy. This total as of March would be 75,000. I have already addressed the daycare issue in a previous letter to your attorney. My position has not changed. I am still a mom at home caring for six or less children with none of the benefit's a large center can provide. This is the only way I can provide income for my family. On several occasions people have contacted me for childcare and I have referred them to Little Academy. You need to stop harassing us and take responsibility for the decisions you have made. You cannot come to us for relief whenever a problem arises from the choices you have made concerning the daycare. I have talked to my attorney and your harassment will stop, in addition, I could be looking to you for damages to my reputation. Sincerely, Jodi homock CC: Kipp L. Manwaring Esq. 490 North Maple, Suite A Blackfoot, Idaho 83221 Phone: 208-782-2300 CC: Kurt Hibbert, Planning and Zoning Administrator 12 N. Center St. Rexburg, Idaho 83440 CC: Daniel Wallace District Seven Health 254 E Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 CC: Department of Health and Welfare 33 Walker Drive Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Ronald Perry 375 East Lagoon Street Roosevelt UT 84066 Richard and Jodi Thomock 671 Dell Drive Rexburg ID 83440 February 12, 2004 Dear Richard and Jodi, The Little Academy Childcare Center is in violation of Rexburg City zoning laws regarding parking requirements. According to city officials, unless there is information concerning the parking which they are not aware of, the Little Academy Childcare Center is not and has not in the past operated legally. As part of the purchase agreement, you warranted that the business was in compliance with all local, state and national laws, ordinances, codes and requirements. This includes all zoning ordinances, ADA requirements, building codes, fire requirements as well as laws regulating daycare centers. The inspections following our purchase of the business revealed many deficiencies. We are required to do the following: -install smoke detectors in each bedroom, hallway and living room. -install handrail on the exterior basement stairs. -install cover over electrical panel. -install blanks in electrical breaker box. -change door knobs to meet ADA and fire requirements. -install water heater pressure relief valve downspout. -sheetrock under stairs to basement with fire -rated sheetrock and install fire -rated door. -modi Dutch door so that it has only one doorknob. -build urnace room around furnace with fire -rated walls and fire -rated door. -install fire -rated door on garage entrance to house. -install fire -rated door between upstairs and downstairs. -install exit signs above all exits. -install fire -rated sheetrock between garage and living space. -Install handicap ramp. -install fire alarm strobe lights in each room and pull stations at each exterior door. There are several other modifications that may have to be made to pass the inspections. Most of these items have been completed at our expense. When completed, we will have invested approximately $15,000 to bring the day care into compliance with the laws and ordinances. However, per the purchase agreement, you warranted the daycare to be in compliance with all laws and ordinances at the time of sale. We have solved most of the deficiencies which have been brought to our attention. However, we are now faced with the parking problem. Unless you have information which substantiates your claim thart 116— daycare parking situation is grandfathered, the city will not allow the daycare to continue to operate. W paid $50,000 for the goodwill of the daycare business, above and beyond the appraised value of the tangible assets. The daycare was represented to be in compliance with all laws and ordinances. When I visted Rexburg last year, I provided the information you requested, but have heard nothing since. I am hopeful that you can prove to the city that the daycare was indeed grandfathered. If you are unable to do so, you sold to us a business that is operating illegally and is violation of the purchase agreement. When I spoke with you last year, you mentioned that the parking issue had been previously brought up by the city and that you solved the problem by obtaining j*rking from Sister Clarke. When I purchased Clarke apartments I was told of no such agreement. To my knowledge there is no parking easement recorded on the property. 1 would not have allowed such as it would have decreased the value of the Clarke Apartments property and restricted future options I may have for usage of the property. Parking is at a premium and to give up parking space permanently would have a very negative impact on the value of Clarke Apartments and the ability to provide parking for my tenants We must look to you to either substantiate the legality of the business you sold us or reimburse us for the business portion of the purchase. The house appraised for about $150,000. We paid an additional $50,000 for the business. On another front, it is my understanding that you continue to provide daycare services in violation of the noncompetition clause contained the purchase agreement. You have received a letter from my attorney concerning this violation of contract. I have also spoken to you personally concerning the violation. The purchase agreement provides for $4,000 per month damages for each month you are in violation of said agreement. Depending on how long you have violated the noncompetition agreement, you may be liable for as much as $30,000 to $50,000. You may also be responsible for the expenditures required to make the necessary modifications to bring the daycare into compliance with the laws and ordinances at the time of the purchase. This amount will be approximately $15,000 to $20,000. In addition, you are in violation of the purchase agreement due to the insufficient parking. We have sustained damages of at least $50,000 as we paid about $50,000 for the goodwill of the daycare, which was apparently not a legal business at the time of purchase. At present, total damages may be as high as $115,000. We are willing to compromise to solve the problems. If you reimburse the $50,000 we paid for the goodwill of the daycare, we will then release you from the noncompetition agreement allowing you to continue operating your daycare and will not pursue either the past violation of the noncompetition agreement nor the cost of modifications made in order to bring the daycare into compliance. We would, of course, still require an agreement that you do not interfere with the operation of our business. This will allow you to do with your current daycare what you wish and will allow us to do as we wish Please contact me, or my attorney by March 1 st with your intentions. My attorney is: Kipp L. Manwaring 490 North Maple, Suite A Blackfoot, Idaho 83221 Phone: 208-782-2300 Sinc r ly, y Gl uvvc- Ronald Perry I 0 Staff Notes 'I RE: Ron Perry Residence/Daycare Facility: -Soul ikbpc� Results of Research into Claim of Grandfathered Status by Owneri- Date: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 • Grandfathering Issue: In order to claim a grandfathered use or situation the use or situation (parking in this case) must have been legal at one point in time and been conforming in all aspects to the zoning requirements in place at that point in time. Parking: At the time of conversion of this single family home into a commercial daycare center the ordinance in effect was the 1968 Zoning Ordinance #478. (I personally know this change of use was after 1974 but before the 1992 Ordinance took effect.). This ordinance #478 specifically designates a parking requirement for a commercial facility at 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of structure. At 3,000 sq. ft- this would mean 10 stalls for the size of building, PLUS 1 stall for every three employees. This structure, therefore, had a requirement of at least 11 stalls of parking the day it opened as a daycare center. It is well established by dated aerial photo that this requirement was never met at any time during the existence of the facility right into the present day. THEREFORE -THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY LEGAL DAYCARE FACILITY PARKING AT THIS LOCATION AND THE DAYCARE ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT GRANDFATHERED INTO A SITUATION WHERE COMPLIANCE WITH TODAY'S ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY. WITHOUT IMMEDIATE MODIFICATIONS THE HOME SHOULD RESUME ITS ALLOWED LEGAL USE AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. • Meeting with Building Official revealed that there was never an approvable building plan/solution approved by the building department for ADA compliance and at no time did the City authorize use of the basement of the facility as a Daycare. Project's Accessibility issues are not resolved. • Under today's parking criteria, there is a maximum of 8 teachers on the largest shift which would require 16 parking stalls. An additional 2 are required for the Basement Apartment. Proposed project currently has no additional parking. • A Daycare is an allowed use in the HDR Zone. However, parking is not in conformance and has not been. This is a simple non compliance issue. • Parking that conforms to the existing code must be obtained in the event use and expansion of the existing facility is contemplated. All other reviews pending on this project should be put on hold pending resolution by the owner of parking noncompliance. EXPANSION PROPOSAL DENIED UNTIL APPROVABLE PLAN SUBMISSION AND REVIEW Kurt Hibbert, Planning and Zoning Administrator Cy35- 7zz-IL4Y Madison County / City of Rexburg GIS Page 1 of 1 http://agentsmithlintranetlarcimslprintable.aspx?MapURL=http:HagentsmithloutputlarcIM... 1/26/2005 C. C, vy 356'67, 5"20. 5230 HOuk� ,I 3H' 3" r a, -o �c Coh�fe icl.; �Kf}.f�,, Arco. '�J (7reeV) Spuce 133 f► /IZ,(61� 85S St ft (3°)%)� i�roPcsRc�Xq 5" (5- 19, ISI' Currev�4 (3,6faceg� II , ti 5r L6rni �L NI ILI S t f bac lc- - --- 75f- ��cI �P J G o0 adgY Nf.;OF++'s —01111 Px. l r iF ShQ� p 9"�f� I `II � x I to Pw�K;ng s4ehS ICI dor buy GrE v,. •c� li eMPjoyes Y �1 i • Z'2 L '_S � � AY 1110"`9' 14 A F'Jw ON O 'r Say_ s o!n �o st kdk �! ,r. a//�.0 Q.tQ 730 C�� . P U S U G t a r C curs ti.Q Opt 5 P 5 �roM 6 PM iU 7 AM AA % a+/01 Idi ,io -e�rr� 3 8: 3 o q -n u, 3 o Pari 4wyt cm caa All"e � so �� f� M � � a„p n% arr 2d C U#�j IM O kA r1 dn,e C wt to 1'f to I . / "I o nN of Morl G� l�2_ / PG r.,�2�/1 pnR- c uc)Ln/J S d -r ?T U 1 cw cr(�J �t l A walk �Ir//YYs clo Cr -/aa l� rl, LFCi GI�.D NS� W �w cif l v -e e7 �.-�%� GYM !� 5 UJ= Gu)-,,kPAk`I Abd yip%LvtGi Sf s. wjrfC3�G'C�f 777 �lJiI,CA( CJ cry v'11.10 � �� 0.�; 9 d G1ti �i w1 /� s b u 3-y Pe -01 rD 0Ci q o tury /part CA.f , ,� -Q"n\ �'7'P o� of �EJa�naslc) �lruuM S� 1 D tiU P1, C-, p 01 �fm A� �m.d N V 'Xy d /LC4,r Ccl I� (� f ZLJ 1� f ftiilf Cou�8.CIZ.o_UA- CAR'. G . Staff Notes RE: Ron Perry Residence/Daycare Facility: Results of Research into Claim of Grandfathered Status by Owner )Q$$ Sedgy Date: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 • Grandfathering Issue: In order to claim a grandfathered use or situation the use or situation (parking in this case) must have been legal at one point in time and been conforming in all aspects to the zoning requirements in place at that point in time. Parking: At the time of conversion of this single family home into a commercial daycare center the ordinance in effect was the 1968 Zoning Ordinance 4478. (I personally know this change of use was after 1974 but before the 1992 Ordinance took effect.). This ordinance #478 specifically designates a parking requirement for a commercial facility at 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of structure. At 3,000 sq. ft- this would mean 10 stalls for the size of building, PLUS 1 stall for every three employees. This structure, therefore, had a requirement of at least 11 stalls of parking the day it opened as a daycare center. It is well established by dated aerial photo that this requirement was never met at any time during the existence of the facility right into the present day. • THEREFORE -THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY LEGAL DAYCARE FACILITY PARKING AT THIS LOCATION AND THE DAYCARE ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT GRANDFATHERED INTO A SITUATION WHERE COMPLIANCE WITH TODAY'S ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY. WITHOUT IMMEDIATE MODIFICATIONS THE HOME SHOULD RESUME ITS ALLOWED LEGAL USE AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. • Meeting with Building Official revealed that there was never an approvable building plan/solution approved by the building department for ADA compliance and at no time did the City authorize use of the basement of the facility as a Daycare. Project's Accessibility issues are not resolved. • Under today's parking criteria, there is a maximum of 8 teachers on the largest shift which would require 16 parking stalls. An additional 2 are required for the Basement Apartment. Proposed project currently has no additional parking. • A Daycare is an allowed use in the HDR Zone. However, parking is not in conformance and has not been. This is a simple non compliance issue. • Parking that conforms to the existing code must be obtained in the event use and expansion of the existing facility is contemplated. All other reviews pending on this project should be put on hold pending resolution by the owner of parking noncompliance. EXPANSION PROPOSAL DENIED UNTIL APPROVABLE PLAN SUBMISSION AND REVIEW Kurt Hibbert, Planning and Zoning Administrator V l �i �. F u � U S `� � e� LLU TT v Z 'r M