Code Enforcement Inspector Didn't Disclose She Was Recording Our Conversation

[cdwjava]

unless they had a valid reason to deny the permit, there are ways around a building dept officer illegally refusing to issue a permit.

You are assuming that the original denial was "illegal." Since we have no idea of the nature of the complaint/allegation, there is no way to determine whether it was something that could still be an issue or might be grandfathered in.

As a note, in my city, they discovered that a great number of waivers were VERBALLY granted for work done on properties here. Unfortunately, those waivers were never documented anywhere by the then-building inspectors, and as a result they remain unlawful additions or modifications. And since the original inspector who allegedly issued these verbal waivers (which were not permitted even at the time) has since passed away a number of folks have found that work done is not permitted and has resulted in the devaluation of property or lack of insurance coverage after a claim for the affected area of the property.

if there was a permit and the construction was given a final inspection and approval, that's it for the city. They don't get to revisit what they approved 30 years ago.

But, we do nto know what the isue is as the OP has not provided that info.

If the OP is not planning to sell or do any work, then the city will have no real grounds to pursue the matter ... unless the issue is a health and safety issue. We simply do not know.

but given the paranoid statements of the OP, I suspect there is more to the issue than we are being told.

Yeppirs!

[iokuok2]

The add-on and alleged permitting took place 30 years ago, I bought the house 9 years ago. Per your response (and thanks) the question seems whether the code enforcement officer is also "considered" a peace officer, which is a good question and if I feel like pursuing that angle I will; but I think it is an add on issue to chase IF I end up challenging the main points formally. She said she “could do that” and I suspect as uncomfortable as it feels she would win that challenge though strictly speaking I would agree that it was odd, I don’t like it and could find myself writing the state representatives that it could use some review since they have provided us a very comprehensive privacy law.
Nevertheless I would argue the position that it was recorded and subject to being used on the record at some point in the future, without my knowing it and available in a record in county records, somewhere for a long time. I did not speak knowing that my words could be potentially held in perpetuity. I don't know how the law looks at that but I would think that there are times when that is significant, especially considering it was inside my home and our latest privacy laws from our state are substantial when the recording is in someone’s residence. Yes they did have permission to do a limited inspection of the kitchen area only; yes I would be stupid to presume anything different from city gov officials on the clock. But stupid presumptions aren’t law.
I did not challenge the facts of what existed and I could have covered it up and lied but I didn't. It is that it was done a long time ago and some very bad documentation indicates that they knew and I would argue by a reasonably obvious reference agreed to it slide, -hence approved it.
The issues entails an added on garage with two bed rooms, bath and efficiency kitchen over the garage. The street is zoned R1 and I live over the garage and have for 9 years and currently I rent the front and older part of the house. I act as care taker for the property. No one lives with me. They consider this two residences and that may be the end of it and I'll have to live elsewhere. OK. Nevertheless, sometimes a single occupant as care taker or family is ok but apparently in this zone the building inspector present with the code enforcement officer said no.
However it seems from the documentation that they DID review this house when it was build, and further, knew that the kitchen is there. So there are two issues, one is 'me" in addition" to a family in front. The other is the fact that even if I rented the whole property as one five bedroom house they want the little efficiency stove and efficiency frig (24 in wide and 10 cu feet) gone. The kitchen, electrical, and gas have all the appearances of having been constructed at the time of the whole structure and not added later. The pitiful documentation that we have indicates a built in cabinet with opening for the stove. This is not indicative of the 1948 full sized kitchen in front and I don't think what I'm seeing could be referring to the main kitchen. So even though there is an R1 on the property - and for how long I don't know but I'm going to accept that it was there when the add-on was created. The building inspector says there cannot be two places to "cook" and the stove needs to go, but I say the stove is listed on the permit. They claim it is referring to the kitchen in front.

At one point they said it could not "look" like a kitchen and even the cabinets and counters would have to go. Later they retracted a bit. Well I would dispute that because without the stove it is essentially a wet bar. There was a built in opening for an efficiency frig too. Currently there is a full sized one and I agreed to remove it and get another 10 cu footer if that was the problem. Whatever. So the question then is if the city knew back in 1984 or 1985 when this was built that the kitchen was there, can they now say that it has to go? Additionally if it was there does that imply two residences and I can be grandfathered in or I go too? I will get over it, aggravating but granted not the end of the world. Aggravating isn't the same as law, I get that.
Additionally they said they did not research anything unless there was a complaint. I said it is very unlikely my neighbors would do that as I have no known issues what so ever and not even home very much. I cleaned up fixed up a very messy run down place and they were all very glad.
I was concerned that another very well resourced public entity where I have successfully presented information indicating the appearances of a number of federal contract violations, amounting to considerable money, was doing this in retaliation and to encumber as much of my energies as possible that I would not have time, money and stamina left to continue to follow their issues. It is a public federal concern and federal process we'll leave it at that. There exists a history that supports that they are capable of as much, and the right authorities have been told.
I asked the city if they checked the ID of people who complain because this is rather scary. They said no. So anybody could have some beef and you have no recourse, add that to my collective mental big picture including bad records, and less that perky willingness to research applicable documentation before siting, and it was getting my attention.
The Building inspector, most recently, likely concerned that he could get connected to a federal investigation, then provided a bit more information saying that someone on the street was turned in for leaving trash cans out chronically so they in turn said well so and so has this violation and so and so that one. It is believable. I'll accept it for now as the logical explanation.
Nevertheless as the first female owner of this house, I'm subject to scrutiny by the attitudes of individuals that are not bound by law in administrating their opinions, not to discriminate and additionally under stress, even reasonable ones, creating a twisted sort of extortion if you will: someone turns them in and if they can turn in a few more violations perhaps they get favor or were hoping they would.
I would argue the position that I , nor anyone in this situation, on the receiving end, in the current process, is given equitable treatment by the law if the law is not the starting place but someone under duress trying to sift the focus elsewhere. It could be he would not turn in male property owners and therefore I am targeted sooner on an issue that apparently he has had a grudge, unknowingly to me, about for 30 years. I doubt I'll take a discrimination path without a lot more data. Nevertheless, as far as law goes it could be another interesting thing to discuss: Is it lawful for them to declare that their process is determined by the fact that they "only initiate an investigation" predicated upon complaints by the lay public –and non-identification-documented public at that? Is that fair, ethical, and lawful? I do not think that necessarily affords equitable application of government and law to each citizen.
They collect money based upon citations as well using this process, one that I aruge is highly given to the appearance of discrimination.
The question about the taping should stand on whether she ( the code enforcement officer) is considered in the class of government workers that are allowed to do this. What I feel, I feel;and generally I would not have sweat it. But in this case It was another item in the growing list of them, in a rather aggressive manner that they suddenly pursued this issue. The first notice was a hand written note placed loose in my US mail box that said the building was not permitted so they wanted to come in and see if it was a permitting violation. How logical. Well it was obvious that the basic structure does exist; it is there in plain view and the permits I knew would clearly indicate that they knew the structure was there. It was not specific about the zoning or whether there was a stove or any of that, just that the entire structure was not permitted. It IS permitted. That much we did finally argree upon.
At one point I called the building inspector to task, I presume with the recording still going and asked about the trusses in the attic. This one I actually had wondered about. He was describing a "rat run" on the trusses and said the pitch of the roof did not require them as the cross beams that form the "W" were sufficient for low roofs. I replied, "there IS no W, only an open triangle made by the rafters. The point, he refers to a coded model that is reinforced with the cross supports and without them the attic is not at code-which means they likely did not look at all. Even though clearly the city knew the structure is there as there are diagrams of the layout in the record that are accurate in the database at city hall. If the attic is not to code without the addition of these cross supports -AND that was the code, then, and now it would seem to substantiate that the city signed off on this without a visit at all and additionally we can presume because the man that owned the house and built the addition, at the time worked for the city, and additionally speculate upon how he got his buddies to sign off for him. Then could that make the city liable for negligence and not my responsibility but theirs for permitting via the good ol boy system ?

It was way before my time as I did not live in this state then. The home passed inspection and title search when I bought it or I would not have been able to get the loan for the house. Maybe that clarifies somewhat. I made several trips to the planning office and the first time they did not have much paperwork. I bought the house in 2005. I knew from the records on the house that the addition was added in 1985 and I mentioned this. They said well everything prior to 2004 is on microfiche. To which I replied, sooo could you go look at microfiche and pull the records. (wouldn't ya think?) Not sure why you would cite someone over a 30 year old issue and not even look up the record from that time before hand. It may not be a legal issue but it is an irritating one and gives me a clue the attitude behind the people doing the citing, as at that point I knew I would have to push for any information I got and they were not willing to give anything they could get away with omitting. I would not have anything prior to 2004 if I had not pushed them for it. It was on me to ask in order to get an accurate documented record and I'm pretty sure they do not have it all even yet. I recall another paper when I bought the house that I got at the city office but it isn't there now. For what its worth , just to play more devils advocate (and I doubt I would be pulling this card) but they permitted this in some ambiguous fashion to a good ol buddy and coworker. I am the first female to own that house and now they are , after 9 years no less , and 30 in all, getting motivated to question the permits but never questioned them when the addition for the first two decades was owned by males.

[jk]

is this garage and upper level connected to the main house or is it detached?

So the question then is if the city knew back in 1984 or 1985 when this was built that the kitchen was there, can they now say that it has to go?

most building permits I have applied for are pretty clear as to what is being built, including a print and design details having to be submitted for approval. I have to presume that was not the case in 1984 in your area.

Additionally if it was there does that imply two residences and I can be grandfathered in or I go too?

no, that does not imply 2 residences and if this was always R1, you are either going to have to prove a variance was issued or accept it is only a single family residence.

[cdwjava]

the question seems whether the code enforcement officer is also "considered" a peace officer, which is a good question and if I feel like pursuing that angle I will;

In some agencies - like mine - the Code Enforcement Officer is a sworn officer under the auspices of the Police Department. Though, that is rare. In most places he might be a public officer, but not one subject to the specific exemptions of the Penal Code. However, since there is really no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications with a government official, this is not an argument that will go anywhere so it might be best to address the ISSUE (the work/addition/permit/etc. rather than the recording.

The issues entails an added on garage with two bed rooms, bath and efficiency kitchen over the garage. The street is zoned R1 and I live over the garage and have for 9 years and currently I rent the front and older part of the house. I act as care taker for the property. No one lives with me. They consider this two residences and that may be the end of it and I'll have to live elsewhere. OK. Nevertheless, sometimes a single occupant as care taker or family is ok but apparently in this zone the building inspector present with the code enforcement officer said no.

It sounds like different issues are going on here. Permits are one thing, and use is quite another. Absent some form of official acknowledgement of being grandfathered in, you may not be permitted to reside above the garage as it may not be zoned or properly acquitted as a residence per state law or the muni code. This is a common issue and when it comes to the fore, the property owner either needs to seek a waiver/variance or make changes to come into compliance. If you believe that the loft over the garage meets or at one time met the standard and that a permit had been issued, I would encourage you to let them inspect it and then seek a variance through the Planning Commission or City Council. Butting heads might feel good, but it will likely result in your losing what hope you might have had of a waiver.

if the work was done 30 years ago and there are no records one way or the other, and the work is otherwise sound and not a danger to other residents, you'd probably have a good claim at a waiver/variance with the city. But, if you fight the inspectors, they will be less disposed to grant such a waiver ... unless you have many thousands of dollars to spend to fight them.

I asked the city if they checked the ID of people who complain because this is rather scary. They said no.

There are laws against requiring people to identify themselves when they seek to engage government resources. Anonymity might tie their hands, but it does not mean they cannot investigate based upon an anonymous complaint - the police deal with this all the time. Anonymous does not mean erroneous. And the best way to prove an anonymous complaint wrong is to PROVE it to be wrong (that might mean letting them in to look).

Is it lawful for them to declare that their process is determined by the fact that they "only initiate an investigation" predicated upon complaints by the lay public –and non-identification-documented public at that? Is that fair, ethical, and lawful?

They can investigate for any reason they choose. The fact that their policy might not include seeking out violations absent a complaint, this policy does not preclude them from doing so if they wanted to.

They collect money based upon citations as well using this process, one that I aruge is highly given to the appearance of discrimination.

And you'd have to PROVE that YOU were singled out for enforcement because of your being in a protected class. That's a tall order, and nothing you have written here remotely indicates this.

[budwad]

Forget the "I'm a female thing". It has nothing to do with that. It is just like I said it was in my prior post, you are being harassed for your complaining about Federal contracts. That is as plain as the nose on your face. Someone of interest in those contracts decided to give you something to occupy your time. It's payback. Whether it was a 'good-old-boy' thing inside the local government or someone from outside who made the complaint, the local government has to do their job and investigate. And they won't tell you who made the complaint, yet! But you can find out.

So the question is what to do about all this. Let's start with the zoning ordinance for your town and the history of it. You will need to do some research about what the zoning ordinance was back 30 years ago when the addition was added. Most zoning ordinances that I have read (and that is quite a few) permit mother-daughter (as it is called) dwellings in a single family home zone. The requirement is that the it is a family member that is living in the efficiency apartment be related to the family occupying the main home. That may have been what the situation was back 30 years ago when addition was added. So it was in complete conformity with the zoning. Fast forward 30 years and you are now the owner living in the efficiency and renting out the main living space. That may seem like a two family home now and the zoning ordinance may have changed since then not allowing the mother-daughter home. But that home would be considered a non-conforming use and as long as that efficiency was not abandoned for more than a year the use continues. So the question is was it a mother-daughter addition, did someone other than a family member to the main house live in that space in the last 30 years, and did the town do anything about it if it was occupied by a non-family member? I suspect not.

Then you come along and make waves and someone in the know makes a complaint that you have a two-family house. Ask yourself who would know that. Are there separate electric meters, separate gas connections, separate water hookups? Do I have the correct now?

The way you fight something like this is to use the laws to give back what they are giving you. You can claim discrimination but that will not work because you are not part of a protected class in this situation. They are not doing it because you are female. You can try to sue the town but that is not going to work and you will loose after spending lots of money. It's not easy to sue a governmental agency over something like this in any case.

Start by learning everything you can about the zoning and it's history. Make a Freedom of Information Act request (not a public documents request) for the complete file. This is not a criminal investigation and there is no confidentiality to protect so you should get the entire file for the property. That will tell you who made the allegations. Then you go public at meeting and start to push back. Go to the local press and tell your story.
David and Goliath.

[jk]

Freedom of imformation act is a federal law and only applies to federal agencies and documents. There may be a state law similar to the FOIA but the FOIA does not apply to state matters.


in california it would fall under the california public records act.

in either law, yes, it is a public records request none the less. You are never privy to secure documents but only those that are considered public records.

[budwad]

I don't disagree with you but some of these local agencies are as dumb as a bag of wet laundry. You just never know what comes back. I made a FIA request on a state agency and got back all the handwritten doodles while they were on the phone. I kid you not.