The record · public-records requests, 2025–2026
Twenty-five times, the county answered that a record does not exist.
Not withheld. Not confidential. Not there. Across four rounds of requests, this was the county's written answer, twenty-five times over. Here is every one, grouped by what it was, in the county's own words.
No records existThe inspection's photographs
4 answersA code officer photographed the property on November 18, 2025. Those photographs are the basis of the citation. Five months later they were gone, and the county could account for none of it.
Any record of when, how, or by whom the November 18 photographs were deleted.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The evidence the case was built on is gone, and nothing documents its loss.
The county's own destruction-authorization form (CW-025 / CW-027) for those photographs.
The county's answer“No CW-025/CW-027 destruction-authorization form was completed.”
The county's own procedure for disposing of records was not followed.
A preservation notice for the CC25-0261 file.
The county's answer“No preservation notice was issued for the CC25-0261 file.”
The file was never flagged to be kept, even as it drove an active case.
Any analysis under the county's own records-hold rule for those photographs.
The county's answer“No Global Holds Rule analysis was performed.”
The county's own holds rule was never applied to the file.
The rule the case turns on
4 answersThe whole case rests on whether a building is old enough to predate the permit era. Asked for the written rule that governs that question, the county had none.
A written policy for deciding whether a structure predates the permit requirement.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The determination at the center of the case has no written framework. It is officer judgment.
Any grandfathering or transitional provisions in a county ordinance.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
No county document sets out how older structures are treated. Nothing on the record contradicts the owner's own analysis of it.
Any ordinance that ever tied the permit requirement to a building's date of construction.
The county's answer“After an exhaustive search, the Building Department… has determined there are no more relevant documents responsive…”
The county has no record that a construction-date cutoff ever existed, the very trigger its citation assumes.
Any guidance on how permits issued before the Building Department existed (7/1/1962) were tracked.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The county has no written rule for the pre-1962 era its own case reaches back into.
The county's own filing system
3 answersThe county's historical permit records are the backbone of its case. Asked how those files are kept and indexed, the county pointed to nothing, and to one file that isn't there.
A records-management policy for the Historical Building Permit Ledgers.
The county's answer“No records exists” [sic]
The ledgers that anchor the county's historical permit record are kept under no written policy.
The “Pasquale Road File” that the county's own 1970s permit ledger points to.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The county's own index cross-references a file for this road, and then cannot produce it.
Any index tying those road-keyed files to specific parcels.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
There is no finding aid connecting the county's own road-filed records to the land they describe.
Two departments, no shared record
5 answersWhether a building is “permitted” is a Building Department question; what is on the land is an Assessor question. Asked how the two are reconciled for this parcel, the county described no connection between them.
A practice for cross-referencing Building Department records with Assessor records.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The county has no mechanism to match the structures the Assessor counts to specific permits.
Any cross-reference between the two departments beyond a single page.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
One page is the sole point where the two departments' views of this parcel meet.
Any correspondence between the two departments about this parcel.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The departments whose records jointly define the case never wrote to each other about it.
A written analysis behind the Assessor's confidentiality position on these records.
The county's answer“Located no responsive existing records… consisting of written analyses, legal opinions, interpretive guidance, training materials, staff memoranda.”
The confidentiality claimed over Assessor records rests on no written framework.
Any written confirmation of what the Assessor's records for the parcel actually cover.
The county's answer“We do not create written confirmations identifying, summarizing, or describing the contents, coverage, years, or structures reflected in those records.”
The county will not say what its own records cover; the burden of reading them falls on the resident.
The parcel's zoning history
4 answersThe county has a stated position on how this parcel came to be zoned as it is. Asked for the documents behind that position, it produced none.
The written basis for the county's own stated zoning-history position for the parcel.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The county's stated account of the parcel's zoning has no document behind it.
Separate records of a 1986 zoning action for the parcel.
The county's answer“No other records exist. See Ordinance 1147 and ZDM 64a.”
The date the parcel was reclassified remains unsettled on the county's own record.
A consolidated history of the parcel's zoning.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
No county document tells the parcel's zoning story end to end.
Documentation of the records search that the county marked a “full release.”
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The search that produced a “full release” on a mostly-unanswered request was itself undocumented.
This case's own paper trail
5 answersBeyond the history, the case's own working file has gaps: a permit that exists only as a line, and no record of what the enforcement cost or how the inspection was authorized.
The actual file for a permit the county cited (#214223), beyond a one-line summary.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
A permit the county pointed to exists only as a summary line: no application, no file.
Any inspection record for that permit.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The county's own note adds that the permit “had no inspections.”
Any internal communication about that permit's expiration.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
Whatever decisions surrounded the permit left nothing behind.
The total public cost of the enforcement and the records review (staff hours, dollars).
The county's answer“No records exist.”
Even the aggregate public cost of the effort is admitted to have no record.
Any authorization or consent for entry into the structures during the site visits.
The county's answer“No records exist.”
The county has no record of how entry into the buildings was authorized.