The meeting came to order at 7:00 P.M.
ATTENDING:
Members - Ray Abbott, Scott Badger, Frank Benesh, Betsey Harding, Sarah Kimball. David Treadwell emailed to say he wouldn’t be able to attend.
Alternates - Darren Levitt, George Howard, Mike Mallett and Larry Siebert.
Members of the public attending - John Pietkiewicz, Brooke Dodge, Bob Kantack, Rosanne Dodge, Andy Chalmers, David Mason, Kathleen Dougherty, Jerry Dougherty III, Mary Canty, Jeanne Sieg, Paul and Pat Belluche, Hank Dresch, Henry Mock, Jerry Dougherty IV, John Allen, Huntley Allan, Roger Chambers, Holly Lewis, Sue Ann Methot, Gary Methot, Bob Davis, Bob Stevenson, Gino Funicella
The minutes of the November 11th meeting were reviewed. Ray Abbott noted that the motion and second for the building code amendments were recorded, but the fact that the vote passed wasn’t stated.
Betsey Harding made a motion to accept the minutes as amended to show the results of the vote; Frank seconded. All voted in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 16 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
David Mason asked to make some introductory comments. He stated that while he believed the $10,000 exemption should be amended to bring our ordinance into compliance with the State Building Code (SBC), he continued to agree with former town counsel, Rob Upton, that the Board of Selectmen has had, and has, proper authority to enforce the SBC. Dave added that code inspections are also consistent with the Master Plan.
Scott Badger stated that, in addition to the less stringent application of the SBC that the $10,000 exemption represented, current town counsel, Peter Malia, and several attorneys at the Local Government Center agree that Jackson’s Section 16, written as a zoning ordinance enforcement process, does not automatically qualify as a building code enforcement process. The building code enforcement process needs to be adopted by the legislative body separately.
George Howard passed around copies a statement he had written titled, Minority Report, and asked that it be attached to the minutes. Scott agreed.
Several members of the public felt that the articles defeated in 2009 clearly indicated that the voters of Jackson do not want SBC enforcement conducted by the town. Further, that the amendments now being considered were unnecessary to show the intent of the town, and otherwise contrary to the voter’s wishes.
Henry Mock spoke against inspections, arguing for the preservation of the culture of self-dependency that he encountered when he moved here and that the Northeast is known for.
Andy Chalmers felt inspections should continue for both safety reasons and to help improve Jackson’s insurance rate. Gino Funicella agreed and added that he felt Jackson’s current ordinance was fine as is. Huntley Allan also spoke in favor of inspections, citing problems he has seen when homeowners attempt to do their own plumbing work, or install a hot water heater without using a licensed plumber.
Jerry Dougherty III questioned whether town inspections for compliance to the SBC make a difference in insurance rates.
Larry Siebert listed Town inspection expenses for the past several years and noted a steep rise over that period. Andy responded that rates are set by the state and that the increase in charges was mostly a factor of increased volume.
Scott closed the public hearing and the board went into a public meeting.
The board discussed the general lack of support shown for the proposed amendments from both sides of the issue. Betsey proposed reworking the amendments to include the $10,000 exemption. Though Scott felt we were likely to end up with the same validity issues we currently have, several supported pursuing Betsey’s proposal. It was agreed that Betsey and Scott would meet with Peter Malia and come up with a new draft to be discussed at a special public meeting on December 15th.
There was no further discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan G. Way, Secretary
December 13th, 2011
Dec 8, 2011
To: Scott Badger, Chairman
Subject: Minority Report
As an alternate on the Planning Board, I was unable to voice my objection via a vote on the decision to forward the proposed zoning ordinance changes for a public hearing. Thus I submit this minority report to advance my objection to the proposed amendments that establish an enforcement mechanism for the State Building Code as they pertain to privately owned single family residential homes for the following reasons.
The proposals are a repackaging of the proposals contained in the 2009 Town Warrant that were soundly defeated clearly voicing the voters objection to that level of intrusion of Town governance. The claim that the proposals were confusing is an insult to the voter’s intelligence. Thus given the strong voice of the people in 2009, the issue should be laid to rest and the proposed amendments withdrawn. Repeating the effort with virtually no information on which voters can assess the impact the enforcement process and make an intelligent decision is disingenuous to the voters.
However, as the proposals have been brought forward to a Public Hearing there are a number of items that must from my perspective be addressed before being placed on the ballot.
First, fully explain the essence of the State Building Code. Following this fully execute the requirements of RSA 674:51 that must be met to establish an enforcement process. Once these are addressed and recognition that the Building Inspector establishes a new Town government position with its incumbent costs/benefits and administration support, additional information must be addressed such as:
How will candidates selected, what will be individual selection process, is the Inspector position full/part time, what will the pay/benefit rate be, the cost of admin support.
Basic information on the job description/duties/responsibilities/ authority,
How will the building permit process work, what will require permits etc, will it include review/approval of designs and what detail will be required, will design changes require further approval, will the Inspector have the authority to engage specialist assistance during permitting and inspection process all at the homeowner’s expense. Will the design/build concept be available, how responsive will the Inspector be to homeowner/craftsman needs.
What will be the inspection criteria, how will it be established, how will the process be conducted to include responsiveness, who maintains the reports, will they be available to the public
If goal is to improve safety then unqualified craftsmen must be removed through the Inspection process. Will the Inspector have the authority to impose fines, restrictions or removal of offender’s ability to work in Jackson? The inspection process that continues to merely correcting of infractions without consequences negates achieving a safer environment.
A separate Building Board of Appeals must be installed rather than doubling the ZBA authority as unique specialties will be required in order to justice to the applicant.
Finally regardless how the process develops we must keep in mind that it is not our Board’s responsibility to empower government but to protect the rights of the individual. In this case the individual’s right to be responsible for the safety of his/her home and ability to maintain/renovate/upgrade without having to ask carte blank permission of the Town must be honored. The Town must establish the criteria where the homeowner is able to perform maintenance/renovation/upgrade without notifying or asking permission of the Town. Concerning the inspection process regardless if it is new home construction or maintenance/renovation/upgrade the homeowner must be free to select their inspector should the owner deem an inspection is necessary.
Respectively submitted,
George Howard
| 
