IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF T. DONOVAN ECKHARDT )

) 2019-PH-SPAP-03
Petitioner. )
)

Re: Suspension of Ability to File New Permit Applications

Consolidated with

IN THE MATTER OF GREYMARK DEVELOPMENT )

GROUP, LLC )
) 2019-PH-SL-01
Petitioner. )
)

Re: Suspension of Licenses: 2577534 (Residential Real Estate Developer);

TGC070304 (General Contractor)

DECISION AND ORDER

PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE CONSOLIDATED PETITION TO CONTEST

THE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF ABILITY TO FILE NEW PERMIT
APPLICATIONS AND NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF LICENSE

I. Background

This Decision and Order is on the consolidated petition of T. Donovan Eckhardt

and Greymark Development Group, LLC (“Petitioners”) for a preliminary hearing
to contest the Notice of Suspension of Ability to File New Permit Applications
issued to Eckhardt and others (“Permitting Suspension Notice”)1 and the Notice
of Suspension of License issued to Greymark Development Group, LLC
(“License Suspension Notice”), both on June 20, 2019. The consolidated petition
was made to the Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Buildings
pursuant to Sections 13-8-130, 13-8-140, 14A-3-304 and 14A-3-3052 of the

1A separate hearing was requested and held with respect to Alovan, LLC, Alovanward, LLC, Hot
N Cold LLC, and Alison V. Gramenos (the Gramenos entities) addressed in the same notice.
Suspension of the Gramenos entities’ permit privileges will not be addressed in this Decision and
Order.

2Under an ordinance adopted April 10, 2019 and appearing on page 100029 of the Journal of the
Proceedings of the City Council for that date, Section 13-8-130 was repealed and replaced with
Section 14A-3-304 and Section 13-8-140 was repealed and replaced with Section 14A-3-305,
both effective July 1, 2019. Pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 2 of the ordinance, on and after July

Page 1 of 9
In re: T. Donovan Eckhardt, et al.
July 29, 2019

Municipal Code of Chicago and the Rules promulgated by the Department of

Buildings pursuant to the same sections.

On June 28, 2019, Petitioners’ request for a consolidated preliminary hearing to

contest the Permitting Suspension Notice and License Suspension Notice was
received. A hearing date was scheduled by mutual agreement of the parties.

On July 8, 2019, a preliminary hearing was conducted. The hearing was

presided over by Grant Ullrich, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of
Buildings, serving as the designee of Judith Frydland, Commissioner of the
Department of Buildings. Petitioners appeared by attorney Mara Georges with
the firm of Daley & Georges. Mr. Eckhardt and Mark Norris, an employee of
Greymark, also participated in the hearing. First Deputy Commissioner Matthew
W. Beaudet, an attorney, presented on behalf of the Department.

The hearing was completed on July 8, 2019, and the record closed on July 19,
2019, to afford Petitioners the opportunity to submit additional materials in
response to materials presented by the Department at the hearing. Petitioners
submitted additional written materials on July 19, 2019.

Greymark’s ability to file new permit applications was previously suspended

following a preliminary hearing (2019-PH-SPAP-01), effective May 29, 2019.
That suspension is unaffected by this Decision and Order.

II. Procedural Matters

A preliminary hearing pursuant to Sections 13-8-130, 13-8-140, 14A-3-304 and

14A-3-305 of the Municipal Code of Chicago and the Rules promulgated by the
Department of Buildings pursuant to those sections is an administrative hearing.
Administrative proceedings are simpler, less formal, and less technical than
judicial proceedings. Foley v. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
213 Ill. App. 3d 344 (1st Dist. 1991) (upholding employee termination), appeal
denied, 141 Ill. 2d 539 (1991). The same level of process that is applicable in a
judicial trial is not necessary at an administrative hearing; due process is satisfied
by a procedure that is suitable for the nature of the determination to be made and
conforms to the fundamental principles of justice. Desai v. Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago, 125 Ill. App. 3d 1031 (1st Dist. 1984) (upholding
employee termination).

1, 2019, “any citation, directive or order issued based on a provision of the Municipal Code of
Chicago repealed [by the ordinance] shall be deemed issued under the corresponding provision,
if any, existing on that date in Title 13, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14E, 14F, 14G, 14M, 14N, 14P, 14R, 14X,
16, 17 or 18 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. The repeal of provisions of the Municipal Code
pursuant to [the ordinance] shall not affect any permit issued, offense committed, amount paid, or
penalty incurred pursuant to those provisions before the repeal took effect.”

Page 2 of 9
In re: T. Donovan Eckhardt, et al.
July 29, 2019

Summary of the Underlying Basis for the Notice

A. Suspension of Ability to File New Permit Applications

The Permitting Suspension Notice states that the bases for suspension are, with
respect to 4 specified properties (1846 North Damen Avenue, 1924 West
Berenice Avenue, 1815 West Augusta Boulevard, and 3352 South Carpenter
Street):

1. Performed or directed work requiring the issuance of a permit without

obtaining such permit.

2. Performed or directed work deviating from the scope of work approved

under a permit without obtaining a revised permit.

3. Performed or directed work that resulted in the issuance of a stop work

order by the city.

4. Made or aided another in making a false statement on a permit

application.

5. Performed or directed work that poses an immediate or imminent

threat to the health and safety of workers or the public.

B. Suspension of License

The License Suspension Notice states that the bases for suspension are, with
respect to 13 specified properties (1803 West Wabansia Avenue, 2136 West
Belmont Avenue, 1906 North Hoyne Street, 1924 West Berenice Avenue, 1815
West Augusta Boulevard, 1430 West Polk Street, 2147 West Moffat Street, 1700
West Wabansia Avenue, 2530 North Orchard Street, 1846 North Damen Avenue,
3352 South Carpenter Street, 18273 West Erie Street, and 1636 North Wood
Street):

1. Performed or directed work requiring the issuance of a permit without

obtaining such permit.

2. Performed or directed work deviating from the scope of work approved

under a permit without obtaining a revised permit.

3. Performed or directed work that resulted in the issuance of a stop work

order by the city.

3The License Suspension Notice states “1837,” however this was corrected at the hearing. No
party was prejudiced by this error.

Page 3 of 9
In re: T. Donovan Eckhardt, et al.
July 29, 2019

4. Upon competition of work requiring a rough or final inspection or

certification, failed to contact the Department to schedule a required
inspection or failed to submit a required certification.

5. Upon competition of work requiring a certificate of occupancy, failed to

obtain a certificate of occupancy.

6. Utilized unlicensed or unregistered building or construction workers for

work which requires a license or registration from the City of Chicago.

7. Failed to identify all licensed persons performing work on the permit

application.

8. Made or aided another in making a false statement on a permit

application.

9. Performed or directed work contrary to the Municipal Code or failed to

perform work required by the Municipal Code where such work
resulted in a substantial defect, error or deficiency requiring re-
inspection or re-review by the Department.

10. Failed to correct a substantial defect, error or deficiency identified by

the Department.

11. Performed or directed work that poses an immediate or imminent

threat to the health and safety of workers or the public.

C. Preliminary Determinations

With respect to the Permitting Suspension Notice, the Department only

presented on bases 2, 3, and 5 at the preliminary hearing. Only these bases
will be considered in this Decision and Order.

With respect to the License Suspension Notice, it was established that

Petitioners were not documented as acting in a licensed capacity with respect
to 1846 North Damen Avenue, 1924 West Berenice Avenue, 1815 West
Augusta Boulevard, and 3352 South Carpenter Street. Accordingly, these
properties will not be considered with respect to license suspension. With
respect to the License Suspension Notice, the Department did not present
substantial evidence with respect to bases 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, and these
bases will not be considered in this Decision and Order.

While other properties in which Petitioners have been involved were

discussed during the hearing and addressed in the supplementary materials,

Page 4 of 9
In re: T. Donovan Eckhardt, et al.
July 29, 2019

only the 13 properties identified in the Notices were considered for purposes
of this Decision and Order.

III. Summary of Petitioners’ Stated Grounds for Contesting the Notices

A. Suspension of Ability to File New Permit Applications

As to the properties and bases in the Permitting Suspension Notice, Petitioners

stated as follows:

2. Performed or directed work deviating from the scope of work approved

under a permit without obtaining a revised permit.

Petitioners admitted that photos presented by the Department depicted work

beyond the scope of permitted work for the Augusta, Berenice and Carpenter
properties and represented that Petitioners are in the process of transferring
responsibility for obtaining revised permits to reflect the full scope of work to be
performed. Petitioners claimed not to have performed or directed the unpermitted
work.

3. Performed or directed work that resulted in the issuance of a stop work

order by the city.

Petitioners admitted that stop work orders had been issued by the Department
with respect to the specified properties. Petitioners claimed not to have
performed or directed the unpermitted work that resulted in issuance of stop work
orders.

5. Performed or directed work that poses an immediate or imminent

threat to the health and safety of workers or the public.

Petitioner did not contest the Department’s position that the removal of significant
areas flooring from a property, without proper permits and without installing
warnings or barriers, constitutes a danger to the public and to emergency
responders. Petitioners claimed not to have performed or directed the
unpermitted work that created the unsafe conditions.

B. Suspension of License

As to the properties and bases in the License Suspension Notice, Petitioners

stated as follows:

1. Performed or directed work requiring the issuance of a permit without

obtaining such permit.

Page 5 of 9
In re: T. Donovan Eckhardt, et al.
July 29, 2019

Petitioners admit that garages (including garages with rooftop decks) were
erected at 3 properties without first obtaining permits. Petitioners note that
permits have been obtained for these garages after-the-fact. As of the date the
record was closed, these garages still require inspections. Petitioners do not
claim they believed or had any basis to believe that such work was performed
under a valid permit.

2. Performed or directed work deviating from the scope of work approved

under a permit without obtaining a revised permit.

Petitioners admit that garages (including garages with rooftop decks) were
erected without first obtaining permits at 3 properties where Petitioners were
acting as General Contractor for the principal structure. Petitioners note that
permits have been obtained for these garages after-the-fact. As of the date the
record was closed, these post-permitted garages still require inspections to verify
the work is compliant with the permitted drawings and the Municipal Code.
Petitioners do not claim they believed or had any basis to believe that such work
was within the scope of the permits issued for the principal buildings.

3. Performed or directed work that resulted in the issuance of a stop work

order by the city.

Petitioners do not contest that stop work orders were issued by the Department
with respect to work being performed by or at the direction of Petitioners.
Petitioners state that these stop work orders have since been resolved. The
Department does not contest this.

4. Upon competition of work requiring a rough or final inspection or

certification, failed to contact the Department to schedule a required
inspection or failed to submit a required certification.

Petitioners admit that on several occasions, sometimes at the direction of clients

and building owners, Petitioners have not requested final inspections as required
by the Municipal Code. Petitioners indicated that they have put practices in place
to ensure final inspections are requested on future jobs.

5. Upon competition of work requiring a certificate of occupancy, failed to

obtain a certificate of occupancy.

Petitioners presented evidence that the failure to request a certificate of

occupancy for 2136 W. Belmont Ave. before selling the residential units and
allowing them to be occupied was based on written advice from an attorney.

9. Performed or directed work contrary to the Municipal Code or failed to

perform work required by the Municipal Code where such work

Page 6 of 9
In re: T. Donovan Eckhardt, et al.
July 29, 2019

resulted in a substantial defect, error or deficiency requiring re-

inspection or re-review by the Department.

The Department did not present evidence that as of the date of the hearing there
were any issues that Petitioner was not attempting to resolve with the
Department.

IV. Findings and Determinations

Eckhardt had an ownership interest in the 4 properties specified in the Permitting

Suspension Notice at the time of the violations identified in the Notice. (It was not
established by the Department that Greymark has any interest in these
properties or is acting as a Residential Real Estate Developer, as defined in
Section 4-6-050 of the Municipal Code, with respect to these properties. Eckhardt
claims the unpermitted work was not at his direction, but it was performed by
persons he and his co-owner(s) authorized to access and perform work at the
properties. Because of Eckhardt’s ownership interests in the properties, Eckhardt
is liable for violations which existed or occurred as a result of work done by
Eckhardt’s agents or apparent agents at the properties during the period of
ownership pursuant to Section 14A-3-301.2 of the Municipal Code. Eckhardt
does not contest that he had authority to supervise and direct work done by co-
owners or agents, only that he was unable to effectively do so due to other
commitments.

Greymark was listed as General Contractor on permit applications for 9 of the

properties listed in the License Suspension Notice, as detailed above. The
Department did not establish that Greymark was acting as a Residential Real
Estate Developer with respect to any of these properties.

The Department presented evidence to substantiate bases 2, 3 and 5. The

Permitting Suspension Notice is upheld on those bases. The other bases were
not presented at the preliminary hearing.

The Department presented evidence to substantiate bases 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the

License Suspension Notice. The other bases either were not presented at the
preliminary hearing or not substantiated. The record substantiates that at multiple
properties where Greymark was acting as general contractor, required
inspections were not requested, work was done without permits or before
pending permit applications were issued, and unpermitted work was caught,
resulting in the issuance of stop work orders.

Page 7 of 9
In re: T. Donovan Eckhardt, et al.
July 29, 2019

RULING AND ORDER

I find that the bases for suspension as stated in the Notice are sustained in part,
as noted above.

THERFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Consolidated Petitions of

T. Donovan Eckhardt and Greymark Development Group are hereby
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

T. Donovan Eckhardt’s ability to file new permit applications or complete

pending permit applications, personally, is suspended, effective as of the
date of this Decision and Order pursuant to Section 14A-3-304 of the
Municipal Code.

Greymark Development Group’s General Contractor license is suspended,

effective as of the date of this Decision and Order pursuant to Section 14A-
3-305 of the Municipal Code. Based on the evidence presented, the term of
the suspension stated in the License Suspension Notice is hereby reduced
from 1 year to 45 days. Because the Department did not present evidence
that any violation related to Greymark acting as a Residential Real Estate
Developer, the License Suspension Notice is withdrawn with respect to that
license.

Pursuant to Section 14A-3-304.1.2, the suspension of ability to file new permit

applications remains in effect until Eckhardt establishes, to the satisfaction of the
Building Commissioner that each basis for suspension has been corrected and
all related fines and fees have been paid, or the properties have been returned to
their pre-violation condition in accordance with the Chicago Construction Codes.

Further, pursuant to Section 14A-3-304.4. Eckhardt may file a petition for re-
instatement of privileges at any time. Said petition for re-instatement must be
accompanied by proof that all non-compliant items have been abated or
corrected and must be directed to DOBCommissioner@cityofchicago.org.

Pursuant to Section 14A-3-305.1.1, the license suspension shall last the stated
period of 45 days. During the suspension, Greymark and its controlling persons
may not engage in the business of general contracting or apply for new trade
licenses from the City of Chicago.

Pursuant to the rules issued under Sections 13-8-130, 13-8-140, 14A-3-304 and
14A-3-305 of the Municipal Code, Petitioners may request a full hearing to further
contest the Notices or any finding in this Decision and Order, however said
request will not stay the effective date of the suspensions.

Page 8 of 9
In re: T. Donovan Eckhardt, et al.
July 29, 2019

During the suspensions, Petitioners may contact First Deputy Commissioner

Matthew Beaudet for permission submit new permit applications on a case-by-
case basis as necessary to remedy a condition identified in the Notice. However,
Petitioners may not create, complete, be added to, be substituted on, or be
transferred to permits or permit applications for other properties during the period
of suspension.

ENTERED BY:
July 29, 2019
HEARING OFFICER DATE

Grant Ullrich
Deputy Building Commissioner
as designee of Building Commissioner Judith Frydland

Page 9 of 9