Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals board grants Van Ness property owner’s appeal after 3–2 vote
Summary
The board granted an appeal of a notice and order for 7443 N. Van Ness Boulevard, overturning staff’s recommendation to confirm five alleged violations. Board members split 3–2 after hearing staff, the property owner and the owner’s attorney debate whether observed work required permits.
The Fresno City Building Standards Appeals Board, by a 3–2 vote, granted an appeal of a notice and order issued to the owners of 7443 North Van Ness Boulevard, which alleged five violations including unpermitted remodeling, rubbish and outdoor storage, vehicle parking on unpaved surface and stucco work without permits.
Assistant City Attorney Christina Roberson summarized staff’s case: code enforcement opened the matter Nov. 24, 2025, inspected the property Dec. 3 and issued a notice and order Dec. 4 listing five violations. Senior community revitalization specialist Carlos Nunez presented photos taken during inspection showing discarded plumbing fixtures (toilets, sinks), lumber and other materials visible from the street. "Staff recommends that the building standards appeals board deny the appeal and confirm the notice and order issued on December 4," Roberson said.
The property owners were represented by attorney Michael Titus, who argued the visible work was cosmetic and representative of routine, ongoing renovations along Van Ness Boulevard; Titus called some observed items "moved and reinstalled" and said replacing fixtures alone does not necessarily require permits. "If we look at it here, there's plenty of material and lumber left out in front of this home as well," Titus said, asking whether neighboring properties had been inspected with the same scrutiny.
Owner Bryce Hovinisching told the board the hot tub is a drop-in model that "plugs in" on a 220-volt outlet and was removed then replaced to accommodate floor work; he described stucco work as redashing and repainting rather than new stucco with wire backing. The building official and other staff cautioned that relocating plumbing, modifying electrical wiring for a hot tub or exterior stucco replacement (not just painting) can trigger plumbing, electrical or building permits; staff said an interior inspection would clarify whether those permit-triggering activities occurred but that the owner declined an interior inspection.
Board members split over whether the staff had met the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Some members noted photos showed new material and at least two toilets and expressed concern about concrete and possible interior work that photos could not confirm. Others said routine rehab often requires moving fixtures temporarily and that staff had not demonstrated the work was permanent or outside normal renovation practices.
After discussion, a motion to grant the appeal was moved and seconded. The board voted 3–2 to grant the appeal (members in the majority concluded evidence left reasonable doubt that the noticed work required permits or that violations remained uncorrected), and the appeal was granted.
The board’s action removes or relieves the notice and order as drafted for this case; staff retained the option to pursue interior inspection with consent or seek a civil inspection warrant if later evidence indicates further enforcement is necessary.
Next steps: staff will document the board’s decision in the case file; if staff still has concerns about potential unpermitted interior work, the department may seek consent for an interior inspection or pursue a civil inspection warrant per standard procedures.
