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
Inspection Status: Approved
Inspection History: INSP - INITIAL CODE ENFORCMENT
Case Number - T15DV06311
Inspection Description - INSP - INITIAL CODE ENFORCMENT
Inspection Status - Approved
| Date | Description | Inspector | Results | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/03/2015 | INSP - INITIAL CODE ENFORCMENT | Approved | VISITED SITE, HAD TWO DIFFERENT COMPLAINTS ON THE SAME PROPERTY, T15DV006405 AND THIS COMPLAINT T15DV06311. FROM T15DV06405 WERE ISSUES FOR TWO SUITES AND MY INSPECTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: >VISITED SUITE 100, KNOCKED ON DOOR BUT RECEIVED NO ANSWER. AT THE TIME I NOTICED ONLY A DEADBOLT ON THE DOOR TO SECURE THE SUITE. ICONTACTED THE OWNER, LEFT A MESSAGE AND LATER RECEIVED A ALL FROM THE OWNER STATING THE SUITE IS USED FOR SMALL STORAGE AND THEY ALLOW SECURITY TO USE THE SPACE TO TAKE BREAKS OR EAT LUNCH. IT IS NOT "OCCUPIED". >VISITED SUITE 116, KNOCKED ON DOOR, RECEIVED NO ANSWER, FOUND THE DOOR LOCKED AND TRIED KNOCKING SEVERAL MORE TIMES. CONTACTED RICK SALDATE AT THIS TIME DUE TO THE UNUSUAL COMPLAINT OF WORK WITHOUT PERMITS, A ELECTRICAL BEAM HELD UP WITH A BAND STRAP (?). TRIED CONTACTING OCCUPANT MICHAEL MURPHY, LEFT A MESSAGE. **I THEN INSPECTED THE COMPLAINTS FROM THIS COMPLAINT (6311) MY FINDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: >PARKING LOT NOT MAINTAINED, I FOUND THE FRONT PARKING LOT HAD RECENTLY BEEN COATED OR SEALED WITH EMULSION AND THEN RESTRIPED.LATER CHECKED AERIAL VIEWS( 2014) SHOWING THE NEW SEAL AND NO STRIPES. SIDE DRIVES WERE PARTIALLY COATED. ON THE SOUTH SIDE THERE WAS A DIRT PARKING LOT, SIGN STATED FOR MANAGERS ONLY. PAVING CONTINUES DOWN THE SIDES OF THE STRUCTURE AND EVEN INTO THE WASH. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE GOING INTO THE WASH AREA AND IS NOT PART OF THIS PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THE SIDE DRIVES LEAD DOWN INTO THE WASH. >THE PILES OF DEBRIS THE COMPLAINTANT REFERRED TO ON THE COMPLAINT BEHIND THE STRUCTURE WERE ACTUALLY IN THE "PAVED" WASH AREA AND NOT PART OF THIS PROPERTY. AFTER CONTACTING THE ONWER, CRAIG COURTNEY, HE ADMITTED THAT THE TWO LARGE (4X4X4) TUBS WERE LEFT THERE AFTER THE PAVING WAS COMPLETED, AND HE WOULD HAVE THEM REMOVED. >NEGLECTED BUILDING/ VACANT PORTIONS. THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING RENTS SUITES, IT'S WHAT THEY DO. I FOUND SUITES RENTED BY CONTRACTORS, REALTORS, COMPUTER REPAIR, THERAPISTS, MASSAGE THERAPISTS, VARIOUS OTHER OCCUPATIONS AND FOUND SOME EMPTY UNITS IN THE MAIN ENCLOSED PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE. HAVE NO IDEA THE REAL NUMBER OF EMPTY UNITS DUE TO "BY APPT ONLY" OCCUPANTS. >AGAIN SUITE 100 WAS NOT MODIFIED BUT IS BEING USED FOR SMALL STORAGE. >WALKED THE COMPLEX HALLWAYS AND EXTERIORS AND FOUND NO HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL. > NEGLECTED STRUCTURE (FRONT PORCH/LATTICE). I FOUND ALL POINTS OF CONNECTION SUCH AS LEDGER TO WALL/ BEAM TO LEDGER/ RAFTER TO BEAM/ BEAM TO POST AND POST TO CONCRETE, WERE ALL PROPERLY COMPLETED, NO IMMINENT HAZARDS. DID FIND LARGE CRACKS IN BEAMS THAT ARE NORMAL CRACKING, BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BANDS PLACED AROUND THE CRACKED AREAS PROBALBY ALARM PEOPLE. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL SPLITTING OR DETERIORATION IN THOSE CRACKED AREAS THAT WOULD CASE THE BEAM TO FAIL. IT MAY HOWEVER IN TIME NEED TO BE CHANGED OUT. THE PORCH HAS BEEN PAINTED BUT IS EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS EVERY DAY, AND AGAIN, THE PORCH APPEARS WEATHERED, NOT FAILING. AFTER WALKING THE ENTIRE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND PARKING AREA, AND THE INTERIOR OF THE ENCLOSED TWO STORY PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH ANYBODY, I LEFT MESSAGES FOR GINGER CASTEL, MICHAEL MURPHY AND OWNER CRAIG COURTNEY. CRAIG RETURNED MY CALL MUCH LATER AND INFORMED ME THAT HE SEALED AND STRIPED THE PARKING LOT, THE PAVED WASH WAS NOT PART OF HIS PROPERTY, THAT SUITE 100 WAS A STORAGE AREA AND REASON FOR ONLY HAVING THE DEADBOLT AND HE HAS ALLOWED SECURITY GAURDS TO USE THE SUITE FOR TAKING BREAKS ONLY. SUITE #116 IS LEASED BY BOTH COMPAINTANTS MIKE MURPHY AND GINGER CASTEL. THEY CURRENTLY ARE IN A LEASE DISPUTE OR DISSAGREEMENT DUE TO THE SINK BEING REMOVED FROM THE SUITE AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE LEASED OUT ANOTHER PORTION OF THE SUITE TO A THIRD PERSON, BUT THIS WAS ALL STATED IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT. I EXPLAINED TO MR COURTNEY THAT I WAS WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE COMPLAINTANT MICHAEL MURPHY BEFORE COMING TO A DECISION. ** ON 9/04/2015 I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE CMPLAINTANT MICHAEL MURPHY WHO STATED THAT THE OWNER WAS DOING WORK WITHOUT PERMITS AT THE TIME THE NEW FITNESS STORE WENT IN ON THE NORTH EAST SECTION OF THE BUILDING. MR MURPHY ALSO STATED THAT HE DID ALOT OF WORK HIMSELF. THE FITNESS STORE WAS NOT ON THE COMPLAINT. MR MURPHY ALSO STATED THAT THE KITCHEN IN HIS SUITE WAS REMOVED, I EXPLAINED THAT REMOVAL OF THE CABINETS AND SINK, EXPLAINED TO ME BY THE OWNER WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT. REINSTALLING THE CABINETS WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT, INSTALLATION OF THE SINK MAY IF PLUMBING WAS NOT EXISTING. EXPLAINED THERE WAS NO HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL, MR MURPHEY SAID IN THE NEW FITNESS STORE THERE WAS, AGAIN NO COMPLAINTS FROM OWNER OF THE FITNESS STORE, AND NOT ON COMPLAINT. EXPLAINED I COULD NOT GET INTO SUITE 100 OR 116 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ONE OCCUPYING 100 AND NO ONE AVAILABLE TO ALLOW ENTRY INTO 116. I EXPLAINED THAT I WOULD NEED TO GET BACK WITH HIM BECAUSE OF CONFLICTING STORIES. ON THURS 9/10 I SET UP A APPTOINTMENT WITH THE OWNER TO WALK THE PROPERTY TO GO OVER ALL ISSUES ON THE COMPLAINT FORM. |