IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF ALOVAN, LLC; )

ALOVANWARD, LLC; HOT N COLD LLC; )
and ALISON V. GRAMENOS )
) 2019-PH-SPAP-02
Petitioners. )
)

Re: Suspension of Ability to File New Permit Applications

DECISION AND ORDER

PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE PETITION TO CONTEST THE NOTICE OF

SUSPENSION OF ABILITY TO FILE NEW PERMIT APPLICATIONS

I. Background

This Decision and Order is on the petition of Alovan, LLC, Alovanward, LLC, Hot
N Cold, LLC, and Alison V. Gramenos (“Petitioners”) for a preliminary hearing to
contest the Notice of Suspension of Ability to File New Permit Applications issued
to Petitioners on June 20, 2019 (“Notice”).1 The petition was made to the
Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Buildings pursuant to
Sections 13-8-130 and 14A-3-3042 of the Municipal Code of Chicago and the
Rules promulgated by the Department of Buildings pursuant to the same
sections.

On June 27, 2019, Petitioners’ request for a preliminary hearing to contest the
Notice was received.

On July 2, 2019, a preliminary hearing was conducted. The hearing was

presided over by Grant Ullrich, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of

1A separate hearing was requested and held with respect to T. Donovan Eckhardt (“Eckhardt”),
addressed in the same notice. Suspension of Eckhardt’s privileges will not be addressed in this
Decision and Order.

2 Under 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Proceedings of the City Council for that date, Section 13-8-130 was repealed, effective July 1,
2019, and replaced with Section 14A-3-304. Pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 2 of the ordinance,
on and after July 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Municipal Code of Chicago repealed [by the ordinance] shall be deemed issued under the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 1 of 6
In re: Alovan, LLC, et al.
July 29, 2019

Buildings, serving as the designee of Judith Frydland, Commissioner of the

Department of Buildings. Petitioners appeared by attorney Mark Nora with the
firm of Polsinelli, PC. First Deputy Commissioner Matthew W. Beaudet, also an
attorney, presented on behalf of the Department.

The hearing was completed on July 2, 2019, and the record closed on July 19,
2019, to afford Petitioners the opportunity to submit additional materials.
Correspondence was received from Petitioners on July 9, 2019.

II. Procedural Matters

A preliminary hearing pursuant to Section 13-8-130 of the Municipal Code of

Chicago and the Rules promulgated by the Department of Buildings pursuant to
Sections 13-8-130 and 14A-3-304 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).

III. Summary of the Underlying Basis for the Notice of Suspension of Ability
to File New Permit Applications

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

1. Petitioners performed or directed work requiring the issuance of a

permit without obtaining such permit.

2. Petitioners performed or directed work deviating from the scope of

work approved under a permit without obtaining a revised permit.

3. Petitioners performed or directed work that resulted in the issuance of

a stop work order by the city.

Page 2 of 6
In re: Alovan, LLC, et al.
July 29, 2019

4. Petitioners made or aided another in making a false statement on a

permit application.3

5. Petitioners performed or directed work that poses an immediate or

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

IV. Summary of Petitioners’ Stated Grounds for Contesting the Notice of

Suspension of Ability to File New Permit Applications

Petitioners admitted to having partial ownership interest in the 4 properties

specified in the notice. Petitioners represented that they exercised little control
over the conditions that are described in the Notice. Petitioners represented that
they are in the process of negotiating future ownership interests in the properties
in order to address the conditions described in the Notice.

As to the bases for suspension Petitioners stated as follows:

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

obtaining such permit.

For all properties addressed in the Notice, Petitioner represented, and the
Department agreed, that at least one permit had been issued and remained
active at the time work was observed. (Accordingly, this will not be considered as
a basis for suspension.)

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 and represented that Petitioners are in the
process of obtaining revised permits to reflect the full scope of work to be
performed (or already performed) at the properties. (After the hearing, a permit
for additional work at one of the 4 properties was issued, and applications are
pending for the other 3 properties.)

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.
3This basis was not presented in the preliminary hearing with respect to Petitioners and will not
be considered in this Decision.

Page 3 of 6
In re: Alovan, LLC, et al.
July 29, 2019

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 the installation
of warnings or barriers constitutes a danger to the public and to emergency
responders.

V. Findings and Determinations

Petitioners had an ownership interest in the 4 specified properties at the time of

the violations identified in the Notice. Because of Petitioners’ ownership interests
in the properties, Petitioners are liable for violations which existed or occurred at
the properties during the period of ownership pursuant to Section 14A-3-301.2 of
the Municipal Code. Petitioners do not contest that they had authority to
supervise and direct work done by co-owners or agents, whether or not
Petitioners exercised this authority.

A. PERFORMED OR DIRECTED WORK DEVIATING FROM THE SCOPE OF

WORK IDENTIFIED IN A PERMIT WITHOUT OBTAINING A NEW PERMIT.

At the hearing, photographs and testimony presented by the Department

established that work significantly beyond the scope of issued permits had been
performed at the 4 properties. For example, photographs established that at
1846 N. Damen and 3352 S. Carpenter St. areas of flooring were removed,
leaving exposed floor joists, which was not authorized by any permit. Petitioners
did not contest these photographs established that unpermitted work had been
performed at these properties.

B. PERFORMED OR DIRECTED WORK THAT RESULTED IN THE ISSUANCE

OF A STOP WORK ORDER.

At the hearing, paperwork was presented that established stop work orders had
been issued based on unpermitted work at the 4 properties. Petitioners did not
contest that stop work orders had been issued. As of the date of this order, only
one of the four properties has had the stop work orders lifted, although building
permit applications are pending with respect to the other 3 properties.

C. PERFORMED OR DIRECTED WORK THAT POSES AN IMMEDIATE OR

IMMINENT THREAT TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF WORKERS OR THE
PUBLIC.

Page 4 of 6
In re: Alovan, LLC, et al.
July 29, 2019

With respect to the removed flooring, which, as shown in the Department’s

photographs, was not protected with any type of barrier, Petitioners did not
contest that this condition poses a danger to workers at the properties as well as
to emergency responders.

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 Petition of Alovan, LLC,

Alovanward, LLC, Hot N Cold, LLC, and Alison V. Gramenos is hereby
DENIED. The suspension of petitioners’ ability to file new permit
applications or complete pending permit applications is effective as of the
date of this Order.

So that Petitioners may address the violations described in the Notice, The
following pending permit application numbers are exempt from this
suspension:

100813206 (1846 N. Damen Ave.)

100823208 (1924 W. Berenice Ave.)
100824475 (1815 W. Augusta Ave.)

The following pending permit application is also excluded from the

suspension:

100830893 (1636 N. Wood St. - revision)

The suspension does not affect the right to proceed under permits issued
to Petitioners prior to the date of this Decision and Order.

Pursuant to Section 14A-3-304.1.2, the suspension remains in effect until

Petitioners establish, 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.

Pursuant to the rules issued under Sections 13-8-130 and 14A-3-304 of the
Municipal Code, Petitioners may request a full hearing to contest the Notice of
Suspension of Ability to File New Permit Applications or any finding in this

Page 5 of 6
In re: Alovan, LLC, et al.
July 29, 2019

Decision and Order, however said request will not stay the effective date of the
suspension.

Further, pursuant to Section 14A-3-304.4. Petitioner 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.

During the suspension, Petitioners may contact First Deputy Commissioner

Matthew Beaudet for permission submit new permit applications on a case-by-
case basis as necessary to remedy the conditions 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.

Pursuant to Section 14A-3-304.1.3, this suspension applies to Petitioners and

Petitioners’ controlling persons.

ENTERED BY:
July 29, 2019
HEARING OFFICER DATE

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

Page 6 of 6