Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Case: T13DV00731

Parcel: 124081150


Addresses:

1445 E 8TH ST

Inspection Status: Approved

Inspection History: INSP - INITIAL CODE ENFORCMENT

Date Description Inspector Results Comments
02/05/2013 INSP - INITIAL CODE ENFORCMENT Approved VISITED SITE, KNOCKED ON DOOR, RECIEVED NO ANSWER.WHILE WALKING UP TO THE PROPERTY I DID SEE A NEW CONDENSER ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. TRIED CONTACTING THE OWNER PETER CASTELLANO, WHILE ON SITE, RECEIVED NO ANSWER. CHECKED THE CONDENSER CLOSER, THE CONDENSER WAS NEW, CONDUIT FOR THE ELECTRICAL LOOKED LIKE IT WAS EXISTING, THE BREAKER BOX LOOKED NEW.
** 2/06/2013 MADE CONTACT WITH THE TENANT, WOULD NOT GIVE HER NAME, MENTIONED THE UNIT WAS REPLACED BECAUSE IT WAS STRUCK BY LIGHTING. TENANT GAVE ME A DIFFERENT NUMBER FOR THE OWNER.
**2/07/2013 CALLED OWNER WHO STATED THE CONDENSER WAS STRUCK BY LIGHTING AND HAD TO BE REPLACED BUT THAT THE UNIT IS PLACED IN THE ATTIC SPACE OF THE STRUCTURE AND IT WAS NOT AFFECTED. MR CASTELLANO GAVE ME THE CONTACT NUMBER FOR MIKE, OWNER OF ABLAZE HEATING & COOLING TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS DONE.
**CONTACTED MICHAEL RIECH OWNER OF ABLAZE. MR RIECH MENTIONED THAT ONLY THE CONDENSER WAS CHANGED OUT, CONDENSER FAILED, IT WAS DURING A STORM. ELECTRICAL WAS NOT CHANGED OUT AS BREAKERS AND ELECTRICAL WERE ALL IN GOOD CONDTION. SAME RECOMMENDED CONDENSER REPLACED THE FAILED CONDENSER. MR RIECH MENTIONED THAT THE COMPLAINT PROBABLY CAME FROM IN HOUSE, HE HAD TO FIRE HIS OWN SON AND A SECOND EMPLOYEE. THEY HAVE STARTED THEIR OWN COMPANY AND CONTINUE TO CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR MR RIECH, HE HAS HAD TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY BECAUSE OF THIS.
***CONTACTED LEE RAY HANLEY TO DETERMINE IF A PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

*** HAD TO CONTACT LEE RAY A SECOND TIME, LEE RAY FELT THAT IF THE CONDENSER WAS CHANGED OUT BECAUSE IT FAILED, AND NOT UPGRADED AND NO ELECTRICAL CHANGED OUT THEN HE WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT BECAUSE HIS INSPECTORS WOULD BE DOING THE SAME THING I WAS, MAKING A JUDGEMENT CALL. DUE TO THERE BEING NO IMMINENT HAZARDS AND NO UPGRADES THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED/ NO VIOLATION