Some Action; Maybe Some Progress

Carolyn here, with contributions from John:

Email to the Mayor Gets Action

Here is yesterday’s email to the Mayor (and a lot of other people):

The house next door has raw sewage running into the back yard, where it feeds a jungle of weeds. The owner put in the current cesspits (and a downstairs bathroom) without a permit and without an inspection by Code Enforcement. The occupants have two dogs that have bit me in my own driveway and attacked a friend out on the street. This is just the current state of a public nuisance that has been going on for over four years. Do you doubt that if any of this happened next door to the Mayor the City would have it fixed in a matter of days?

In this situation there is only one question to be asked: What is wrong with Code Enforcement and the Health Department? I don't know the answer so I suggest you go ask them.

9:58 AM today: Carolyn was walking Mario. Emily Deere (phonetic spelling), a lawyer with the Health Dept., left a voice mail requesting permission for Erika Frotman to walk on Carolyn’s property to reinspect 6003.

10:21 AM: Called Frotman's cell phone. She said she was on her way over. Told her she had permission to walk on Carolyn’s land.

10:43: Frotman and two men showed up in front of 6003. James came out and they walked toward his back yard.

10:48: James walked all three back to their van.

But no Results from Health or Code

10:49: Knocked on Carolyn’s door

Bill Davidson Code Enforcement

Erika Frotman

Doug King Environmental Supervisor, not Frotman’s supervisor, who is out of town

Said they had done the inspection in back yard, picked up pieces of fence, jumped on it, no visual evidence of sewage, no odor. King complained that my blog said sewage was there now.

Davidson said he was going to write up the code infractions he saw and was going to try to get some money (from city? some fund?) to paint the house.

Davidson said James told him that he did not add the bathroom just put a toilet in it so they can't move on that. Davidson also said James did not need a permit for the repair.

Let’s take this one bit at a time

Sewage there now?

Scroll down and you’ll see that this blog talks about specific incidents when there was raw sewage on the ground. It talks about the owner’s repairs and the very healthy weeds growing (1) where the sewage was on the ground next to the house and (2) at the end of the trench the owner dug to repair the system. The blog below (and the email to the Mayor) says there is sewage running into the back yard. Looking at the weeds it is manifest that there either is a cesspit back there or the new pipe is reconnected to an old pipe that is leaking. The fencing on the ground (at the end but not along the length of the ditch) suggests it’s the cesspit.

It’s interesting that Code earlier (ca. 2 years ago) cited the house for paint and it still has not been painted. If you'll look here, you'll see where the neighbors, before complaining to Code, offered to buy the paint and help apply it but James refused.

Did Not Install the Bathroom?

Both James and his (now ex-) wife have said that James himself put in the downstairs half bath. Zillow, however, says 1-1/2 baths, so we may be wrong about this one.

Does not need a permit?

Let’s start with the Tampa Code of Ordinances:

5-105.1 - When required.

Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any required impact-resistant coverings, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, or to do any site related work shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. (emphasis supplied).

That’s clear enough: If you are going to repair the plumbing, you need a permit. Perhaps there’s an exception?

5-105.2. - Work exempt from permits.

* * *

3. Plumbing.

(a) The repair of leaks, unstopping of sewers or waste pipes, repairing faucets or valves or cleaning of a septic tank where such work is located within the property lines, or for the stopping of leaks in drains, soil waste or vent pipe; provided, that should any trap, drain pipe, soil waste or vent pipe be or become defective and it becomes necessary to remove and replace the same with new materials in any part or parts, the same shall be considered as new work.

(b) The clearing of stoppage, or the repairing of leaks in pipes, valves or fixtures, when such repairs do not involve or require the replacement of fixtures.

Back when he dug the trenches, James told Carolyn that he was going to pick up the new pipe. This repair, then, was more than a clearing of stoppage; this was a repair with new pipe installed, to be treated as “new work.” That means it needed a permit. And needing a permit means the work was to be inspected:

5-109.1. - General.

Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official and such construction or work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved.

5-109.3. – Required inspections

* * *

Plumbing

3.1. Underground inspection: To be made after trenches or ditches are excavated, piping installed and tested, and before any backfill is put in place.

Code nonEnforcement

So what do we have here:

· Davidson adopts the standard that if you can’t see or smell sewage, there’s no problem.

· Davidson says that no inspection is required for a repair that the law requires to be inspected.

· Davidson ignores the clear evidence of the weeds and the fence on the ground.

But Wastewater Collection is Another Story

About noon Frank James, a Maintenance Supervisor with Wastewater Collection Systems, and three workmen showed up in the street in front of 6003. Mr. James said they were there to see if 6003 is discharging to the sewer.

They went for lunch and one of workmen came back with their camera on a long, flexible probe. The kind (he shared his insect repellent) and helpful workman showed Carolyn the view: The 6” pipe to the sewer is fed, just a few feet from the sewer, by a 4” pipe. The camera would not go all the way up to the house because it wouldn’t go into the 4” pipe. The workman said the haze in the pipe – it looked like cigarette smoke - was condensation, which often indicates a break. As well, the camera showed dirt in the 6” pipe, apparently coming out of or from around the 4” pipe.

He said it looks like a blockage, maybe a break. They will come back some time when somebody is at home so they can flush a toilet and see what, if anything, comes through.

The nobody home problem poses an interesting puzzle. Carolyn saw the owner getting his mail just as the City workman was arriving behind the house. Some fifteen minutes later, the workman knocked on the door to get access to a toilet and (1) there was no answer and (2) the dogs did not bark. When nobody is home, those dogs bark when Carolyn walks in her back yard. These data suggest that the owner was home but hiding out. Sigh.

John here. The 4"/6" pipes suggest three possibilities:

1. 6003 is not connected to the sewer at all. Call this the cesspit theory.
2. The owner connected a 4" pipe to the house and stuck it into the existing 6" sewer pipe w/o sealing it off. That would explain why the 4" pipe goes almost all the way to the sewer.
3. Same as #2 but there is a break in the 4" pipe.

Any way you slice that it looks like a Code violation. I think we'll have some business for Mr. Davidson even though it's clear that he really doesn't want it.

Stay tuned.