Chairman Scott Badger called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
ATTENDING:
Members - Scott Badger, Frank Benesh, Bea Davis, Betsey Harding, Sarah Kimball and David Treadwell. Alternates - George Howard, Mike Mallett, Larry Siebert. In the absence of Ray Abbott, Mike Mallett was named voting alternate.
Members of the public attending - Jerry Dougherty III, Norman Head, and Martha Benesh.
PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS:
Scott stated that Sue Way has resigned her position of Planning Board Secretary; he requested that a public “thank you” be written into the minutes. It was noted that the Board of Selectmen have sent her a letter of appreciation.
DISCUSSION OF TOWN ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE BUILDING CODE (hereafter SBC): The purpose of the meeting was to consider comments from the December 8th public hearing regarding proposed amendments to Section 16, Administration and Enforcement, of the Jackson Zoning Ordinance and discuss possible changes to those amendments.
At the beginning of the meeting, discussion centered on the petitioned article, a copy of which was distributed among the members. The article asks that the Board of Selectmen’s process of enforcement of the SBC be repealed until the voters (the Legislative Body of the Town of Jackson) adopt required provisions. Scott distributed copies of emailed discussions about the petition and how to handle it. Frank moved that the Board take no action on the petition, because, since it is not put forward as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, it is not within our authority, as delegated in RSA 675:4. Dave seconded the motion. Jerry Dougherty indicated that the Selectmen have asked that it be taken up by the Planning Board, and go through the public hearing process. Given the attorney’s written opinion and
the RSAs indicating that the Board can only hold public hearings on amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Frank, Sarah, Bea, Dave, and Betsey voted to take no action on the petition; Scott and Mike opposed the motion.
Frank next proposed submitting no amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, believing that our proposal would be confused with the petition. In addition, he stated that the Board is obligated to honor the Master Plan which supports enforcement of regulations. Sarah commented that the petition asks that the issue be brought to town voters for resolution. George agreed with Frank, indicating that the issue should be delayed a year to resolve procedures. Betsey stated that the intent of the petition is clear, and we must try to help resolve the issue. If the petition is voted up, and an amendment specifying enforcement of the SBC were also voted up, they would not conflict. Although the Board cannot work with the amendment as it is worded, Betsey commented that it is worded in such a way that encourages resolution of
the issue. She commented that she believes it’s very important to allow the town to vote on it in March, and not to continue the current disgruntlement for another year.
George presented his proposal, indicating that the position of Building Inspector is not properly spelled out, in terms of duties and compensation, and further, that it actually should be separated into two positions: Building Inspector and Zoning Inspector. Scott pointed out that the Jackson Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Selectmen “prescribe [the Building Inspector’s] duties and fix his compensation.”
Betsey requested that the discussion move to the emailed proposals. Frank asked why those proposals omit town inspections for some or all residential structures. Larry indicated that our objective should be to let the town decide; Frank stated that our obligation is to decide what is best. Scott stated that the Planning Board should propose amendments that we endorse. Some feel that the town should not inspect, and others feel that the town ought to inspect – both opinions are valid.
Martha Benesh stated that the amendment should be clearly stated, for the voters to decide. Jerry Dougherty III commented that the Town of Conway inspects commercial and multi-family structures. In addition, a resident can ask for a town inspection. Dave commented that the Town of Jackson should do what’s good for the town, not simply follow what another town does. Frank stated that holding inspections is a public safety issue; he indicated that he could support having inspections of new single family construction without inspection of single family home alterations. Mike asked what would happen if the proposal does not pass. Frank said that if it fails at Town Meeting, the petitioned article takes over.
On the question of whether the new proposals are less stringent than the SBC, Scott stated that the proposals seem to comply sufficiently. RSA 674:51 II allows voters to determine how to structure enforcement of the SBC and submit it to the State Building Code Review Board “for informational purposes.” Bea Davis left at this time, having attended meetings since 4 PM; Larry Siebert became a voting alternate.
Discussion then centered on the emailed proposal with no inspections for 1- and 2-family homes. Sarah suggested adding “unless requested by the property owner” to the proposed sentence in 16.1 that ends with “shall not be inspected by the Town’s Building Inspector.” Scott indicated that he is personally not convinced that residential inspections are necessary. Frank asked why it matters whether a structure is one-family residential, commercial, or 3-family residential; what about a 2-family residence? Supporting inspections of one and not another is a logical inconsistency. Scott stated that there is no right or wrong answer. It’s a question of values, personal opinions. He stated his belief that the more we regulate, the more we preclude people acting responsibly
on their own. Many buildings in Jackson were never inspected. Betsey commented that she would be more comfortable exempting only single-family construction, not two-family dwellings. In addition, if the amendment with no residential inspections passes, voters may subsequently pass an amendment reinstating residential inspections, if they believe it would be more convenient to have local inspections.
George inquired who has been present when Andy Chalmers has done inspections, asking what he does. George indicated that he has no checklist, and leaves no record of what he finds. Mike said he has no problems with Andy’s style of inspections. Frank moved repeal of amendments already brought forward, and bring no amendments forward at this time; Dave seconded the motion. Betsey commented that the town is asking for greater clarity, and we should offer it. The motion failed with frank and Dave in favor, and Sarah, Scot, Betsey, Mike and Larry opposing. Frank had to leave the meeting at that time. George was appointed a voting alternate.
Scott moved that we amend the articles previously brought to public hearing as follows (proposed new wording is underlined here): The heading: Duties of Board of Selectmen and Building Inspector.
16.1 It shall be the duty of the Board of Selectmen to enforce and administer the provisions of this Ordinance. The Board of Selectmen or an appointed Building Inspector shall administer the Zoning Ordinance literally and shall not have the power to permit any use of land or buildings that are not in conformance with this Ordinance. Variances, Special Exceptions, and Equitable Waivers of Dimensional Requirements must be approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. For both commercial construction and two- or more family residential construction, an appointed Building Inspector shall enforce the State of New Hampshire Building Code as established in RSA 155-A. For single-family dwelling construction, State Building Code inspections shall not be conducted by the Town’s Building Inspector unless requested by
the property owner. The Board of Adjustment shall act as the Building Code Board of Appeals.
16.2.1 A Building Permit application shall be submitted before any building or structure is constructed, extended, removed or altered. By way of example and not limitation, this requirement also applies to swimming pools, mobile homes, modular homes and exterior signs.
16.2.2 Construction of single-family dwellings shall require the filing of a Building Permit application prior to commencement of work solely for the purpose of determining conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Alterations to an existing single-family dwelling within the existing footprint that do not exceed $10,000 in estimated value shall also require the filing of a Building Permit application, but are exempt from Town Building Permit fees and inspections
16.2.2 (renumber here and below)
16.2.7 The Board of Selectmen shall appoint a Building Inspector, prescribe his duties, and fix his compensation.
Sarah seconded the motion. George reiterated his concern that the functions of the Building Inspector should be separated. Sarah stated her belief that the proposal is sufficiently clear. Dave opposed the motion; Sarah, Scott, Betsey, George, Larry, and Mike supported it. We decided to hold our next public hearing on the date of our next regular meeting, January 12th. At 9:45, adjournment of the meeting was moved by George and seconded by Scott. All approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Betsey Harding, Acting Secretary
December 18th, 2011
| 
