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

Inspection History Details

Case: T14DV01434

Parcel: 113061840

Inspection Status: Approved

Inspection History: INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE

Case Number - T14DV01434

Inspection Description - INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE

Inspection Status - Approved

Date Description Inspector Results Comments
12/12/2014 INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE Approved MJ has closed out all the compliance information. Close case
06/10/2014 INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE Approved Visited the site and took morning pictures of employee vehicles. There are eight vehicles on the property at this time. There is now piles of dead vegetation on site that were not present on the last inspection. No other items have been taken care of. No permits have been obtained.
06/10/2014 INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE Approved Evening inspection and pictures. There are 5 landscape company vehicles on this property at this time. Send Citation.
05/27/2014 INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE Approved Visited site. Rear easement has been cleaned. There are 5 landscape company vehicles on this property at this time. No other items have been taken care of. No permits have been obtained. Send 2nd refee.
05/13/2014 INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE Approved Inspector Navarro and I visited site to meet with Mr. O'Hagin. He arrived 15 minutes late. We explained the NOV to him, of which he had a copy of with him. He questioned us on the items of the NOV. He stated that the work to the rear of the property was in process. As for the violation regarding the use as a commercial business for storage of equipment and vehicles, both commercial and employees he stated that he has some sort of agreement of when he bought the property. We could not find anything in our records. He asked if we were going to pay for the search, and we said NO. As the discussion progressed Mr. O'Hagins demeanor became less than cooperative. Mr. Navarro then explained to him his options to remove the structures or obtain permits to repair. He explained that a refee was to be assessed at this time. He also asked Mr. O'Hagin if he had any questions, in which he replied that he did not. Meeting was over. Mr. Navarro and I went to the back of the property and found that no work had been done with the dead vegetation and overgrowth as stated by Mr. O'Hagin.
05/13/2014 INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE Approved Met owner on site, discussed the notice of violation and the process of time lines, extensions, inspection fees and citation process, stated that he had not recieved the notice of violation until thirty prior from our meeting, I then asked him if he did not recieve the notice until then the how was it that he sent a rebuttal letter to the notice of violation on 04/15/2014 stating that he has a letter stating that he has a legal non-conforming status on the property from years prior, he asked prior to this meeting that he was to bring the legal non conforming status that he has a copy due to the fact there is no copy of said documents in the archcives, he stated that he could not still find them and there for could not produce them on this meeting, he also stated that he did not understand how we could assume that the building in question (work with out permits) were not in established in that same time period, we then produced documents of the last approved site plan which one building was extened and a new one was build after the last approved site plan and also that there are electrical safety hazards that were modified with out permits, he the asked how we concluded that the buildings are in a deteriorated state, we then explained to him that at the time of the initial there were employees of a licensed landscaper on premises that was asked if the inspector could do a initial inspection on site, which the employee stated that he proceed with inspection, inspector had proceeded and then done a initial inspection were upon was the deteriored state of the buildings were, corragted roofing was missing, roof joist were damaged due moisture, he also saked what initiated this case. it was explained to him that the neighbors had complained that there was roofing that had blown into there property, He then stated that he still did not under stand and that he was very "anal ", We then explained to him if he indeed had taken care of the overgrown vegetation that on the notice of violation, he stated that he did not know and that he thought it was taken care of, then was asked if we could go back and do a follow up on the overgrown vegetation, he stated at that point that we could not and tha the wanted an explaition on the process again how it works because again he stated that this was very anal and had a had time understanding. At which point I explained to him that he would be assesed a inspection fee of seventy five dollars and that a follow up would be done again in ten days and if nothing was done at that point a addtional inspection fee would be assessed, and again if not done after a other inspection and nothing was abated then at which point a citation would follow and woul be placed in the court system. He was then asked if he unstood the procee, he stated "YES" and was asked if he had any additional questions, he stated "HE DID NOT". We then left the premises and did a follow up inspection on the easement and was not abated at that point. Proceeded to the office, had a meeting with supervision and explained the process that we had explained to the owner. will follow up.
03/24/2014 INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE Approved Visited site and obtained permission to enter and take pictures of the structures. Found the structures in deteriorated conditions.