Staff report by Supervisor Der Vue: this is a duplex, upper and lower. August 20, 2025
our office received a complaint of water damage in upper unit along wall and ceiling.
Inspector Standish confirmed the water damage with visible mold among other hazards
including missing smoke alarms, deteriorated siding and missing door frame on front
entry door. Correction orders issued. When an inspector responds to complaint and
other deficiencies are observed they are able to issue other orders under chapter 34 to
protect public safety and welfare and established minimum maintenance standards for
buildings, both interior and exterior.
Moermond: this appeal came in a long time ago, appeal came in September 2nd.
Ware: first, I’ve been doing this for a while but my experience with the fire inspections
is when a complaint is called the inspection is limited to the complaint with a possible
call to owner or myself to talk about things. This complaint was about one item. Now,
to address that the damage was no longer wet. It was repaired in June. Hole was fixed
from inside the attic. That was old damage but no current leak. Number 1 and 3 were
not issues that day. Smoke alarm, tenant had removed. It wasn’t there again today and
we had to replace it today. The other things, if he’d called, everything on the list was in
process painting done and siding and trim being replaced. I feel like they should be
taken off the record and the only legitimate thing was the inspection for the water
damage, it was previous damage that hadn’t yet been repaired. All of them have since
been repaired as they were normally scheduled repairs, not in response to this
complaint. My concern is that a small item that is a complaint causes an almost
Certificate of Occupancy inspection and if that’s the case and these repairs cause us
to not have an inspection for 3 years that’s great, but we’re getting excessive request
for repairs and although I agree, I don’t see them as hazards.
Moermond: why do you bring up hazard?
Ware: because she said anything that appears to be a hazard.
Moermond: I guess I’m confused, at all times the building should be in proper repair.
The photos show evidence of water damage. You are saying the source was
addressed, but there clearly hadn’t been abatement measures for the damage in the
property and they were legitimate. They also don’t come with a date stamp of when the
leaking occurred. A phone call is always nice. I would say also it isn’t always possible.
I’m not thinking that’s a reason to grant the appeal. In terms of what is part of the
record, it already is part of the public record. What we can do here is discuss whether
it was a valid complaint and call and whether it is or isn’t justified. We can’t change the
record. I look at the scope of this, and I see things that are issues but I don’t see
them as property wide, they’re relatively confined. I’m not concurring on that count,
though I understand where you’re coming from. As far as the smoke alarm, even if the
alarm is removed by the tenant, responsibility does ultimately lie with the property
owner, as you know. It sounds like it is just a matter of getting a reinspection done.
Ware: if you look at the list you’ll see everything marked with the exception of the water
damage and missing smoke alarm all has to do with work on the property. He did call
me that day from the field and said nothing about anything but water damage and I told
him it had been repaired, but the cosmetic piece hadn’t been done yet. I don’t feel it
was fair to not have a conversation about why these things were happening. It is a
huge list for someone to bother writing by hand especially.
Moermond: your concerns are of record. Ms. Vue, how do you want to handle the
inspection?
Vue: the inspector can complete that inspection himself. I do have his schedule up if
Ms. Ware would like to coordinate a date and time, we can do that.
