Magistrate declines to find building‑permit violation for cosmetic bathroom work at 582450 Eighth Way

The Special Magistrate on Aug. 6 declined to find a violation against the owner of 582450 Eighth Way after testimony and documentary evidence showed the interior work described by the owner was cosmetic and, on the record presented, did not clearly require a building permit.

Code enforcement officer Paul McFarland told the magistrate that, when interior work is changed from its original state, the city generally requires a permit and usually expects a remodel permit for shower replacement. McFarland recommended the owner obtain either a permit or a written determination from a building official if no permit was required.

Owner Alba Marzo presented receipts and photographs showing the work — replacement of tile, vanity, toilet and shower fixtures — and said she had not altered plumbing valves or structural elements. Marzo said much of the work was cosmetic and that she had research from the city website suggesting certain interior work may not require a permit. Marzo also said she had attempted to obtain permits and had been told by city staff about owner‑builder limitations and inspection timing.

The magistrate said the city had not proved, by the greater weight of the evidence presented at the hearing, that building‑permit requirements had been violated for the documented work. The magistrate declined to enter a violation finding and dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing the city to refile if it later obtains written evidence from a building official that a permit was required and not obtained.

The magistrate advised the owner that dismissal does not preclude future enforcement if additional evidence is produced and suggested the city obtain a building official’s written determination before returning to the docket.