A local home owner is taking issue with the city’s building inspection process and vowing she will get an engineer’s report to keep intact the small deck she had built next to her mud-room.

In an interview last Thursday, Lori Lemieux explained that she had the mud-room and deck built over the past couple of building seasons. She has been through a couple of contractors in the process.

While the inspection on the mud-room was approved, a city building inspector would not approve the paperwork on the small deck, which is about three feet wide by seven feet long and approximately two feet off the ground.

Lemieux said there were issues that came up early last week when she requested that the city contact her and let her know when the inspection was being done so she could be there.

The inspector was there last Tuesday, but left no paperwork showing the inspection had been done. It was only when she called the city last Thursday that she learned he had been there – and the inspection hadn’t been approved.

That happened after Lemieux asked to be told when the inspector would be there so she could be there as well. She noted she had told the city they could call her at work just before they went to do the inspection and she would get there quickly.

“We could have discussed it,” Lemieux said of any issues with the deck.

The issue she’s been informed about is with the size and location of a cement block beneath the deck.

Because the deck also has a pillar for the mud-room on top, the inspector has told her it will not meet the required standards and needs a larger cement pad in a different area of the deck.

She said that would require significant work in ripping apart a portion of the deck and, it wouldn’t make a difference in the deck’s stability.

Lemieux said she now plans to get an engineer’s report stating that the cement block is sufficient and meets requirements.

In an interview Friday afternoon, city planning manager Pat Ross said he was still waiting to speak with Lemieux about the issue.

He did note, though, that the city cannot approve projects that don’t meet the required building code stipulations.

An engineer’s assessment would be an option if Lemieux wanted to take issue with the city’s report, he said, noting third party engineer reports are commonly accepted by the city.

Ross also noted that based on the information he has about the matter, work to fix it would be fairly minor.

As well, he said, the city doesn’t typically commit to telling residents when it will be conducting an inspection unless entry into the building is required.

“We don’t have the ability to control the schedule,” he said.

He pointed out that inspection times can vary, depending on each project and the issues that may come up. And that, in turn, impacts what time or day an inspector might get to a site.

While an inspector may place a copy of a report in a mailbox or mail-slot on a door, Ross explained that in cases where one can’t be easily found on the house, the city will use other options.

The city is also moving to an electronic system, emailing the reports to the property owners, contractors and others who may be involved with the work, where that is an option, he said.

Ross emphasized he is still looking at the matter.