SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TOWN OF JACKSON, NH
Thursday, January 3, 2013– Jackson Town Office
MINUTES
Call to Order: Roll Call, Voting Member Determination and Minutes of December 8th and December 19th.
The meeting was called to order at 7:37 pm by Scott Badger.
Members Present: Chair, Scott Badger, Vice Chair, Sarah Kimball, Selectman’s Rep John Allen, Frank Benesh, Dave Treadwell, & Betsey Harding. Ray Abbott was not in attendance.
Alternate Members Present: Dick Bennett, Larry Seibert, & George Howard. Mike Mallet and Daren Levitt were not in attendance.
It was determined that Larry Seibert will be voting in place of Ray Abbott.
Members of the Public Present: Gino Funicella, Jerry Dougherty III, Select Chair Jerry Dougherty IV, Brian Byrne, Hank Benesh, Huntley Allen, Norman Head, and Steve Weeder.
Minutes from December 13th were discussed. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Betsey Harding and seconded by Dave Treadwell. All were in favor, and the minutes of December 13th were approved as written.
Minutes from December 19th were discussed. A motion to approve the minutes as amended (in section 13 by removing “to a subsequent owner without approval of Building Inspector” words, and correcting the strike out of 11, and in section 7 strike the words “and land development”) was made by Betsey Harding and seconded by Frank Benesh all were in favor, minutes of December 19th were approved as amended.
State Building Code Enforcement: To work on a draft State Building Code enforcement ordinance and to consider whether the question should be put on the ballot by the Planning Board, or the Board of Selectmen.
Scott spoke to Town Council Peter Malia regarding the edits that were suggested and made at the December 19th meeting. Peter said there were only a couple of things he could see right off and that entailed the following: a line space missing between section 12 and 13, and the extension of time in the last sentence of section 9 that was added was not supported by the RSA and codes. It was decided to add the line space and remove the sentence.
The revised version was then gone over by the Board for any other issues.
Section 3 g was discussed, and concern was expressed about the Building Inspector having a blank check in being able to engage the Town Attorney. It was determined that the Selectmen could, once a bill was received, ask questions of the Building Inspector about the reasoning for engaging an attorney, just the same as they do with the Planning Board and the ZBA.
George feels we need to be very straight forward about what the process looks like. We only have part of what is required and recommended. He feels we need to put in writing what we feel the Building Inspector needs for procedures and check lists. For example: design acceptance. Scott feels the Building Inspector’s scope will have to be done by the codes as required by the State. George felt that Section 7 is incomplete. Dick feels we don’t have time to restructure the document to encompass those “requirements”. Those specs are spelled out in the code books. Sarah’s interpretation is that we are going to charge the building inspector with constructing a checklist for how things will be done. Jerry Dougherty III thought that what George is alluding to, how detailed and what the limitations will be, depended
on who the Building Inspector is and what is being built. The Selectmen would have the authority to replace that person if who we get for a Building Inspector isn’t working.
Gino feels the worst thing the Planning Board could do is remove the Selectmen from the equations. He feels the Selectmen should still have the authority.
Scott says in speaking with Andy, the contractors know what needs inspection when, and they make the appropriate calls for inspections. Do we need a map of what the process looks like and when inspections are needed? Dick feels that when the Selectmen hire the building inspector, they will ask that person what their procedures will be, and let the candidates know that this is what is wanted for information. Sarah asked when the job descriptions are written were they discussed in a public meeting. That is when we would have the opportunity to ask these questions. Dave said that he had worked with many different inspectors and they are almost always willing to work with the permit holder on questions and requirements. We need to let him work, not put him in a narrow place to work with. Betsey said this person will need to be accountable for
what they do.
George feels we need to list all that don’t need inspections. We have not listed some that are listed in the SBC. Others agreed that we may not show every one, but that we have enough. There was much discussion around this issue. When George said we should list what work requires permits and inspections, Sarah said we have been advised by our attorney to either list what is not required to be permitted or what is, but not both. Scott says the 1st paragraph pretty well spells out what is required. Also keep in mind we are scheduling Public Hearings where we can still change this if needed. Frank feels we need to make sure the current Building Inspector is available for those public hearings to answer any questions that may come up.
Larry feels that in 7f. we are allowing an exemption from the permitting process that isn't supported in section 105.2 of the International Residential Code. He said that he isn't opposed to allowing the exemption, but felt that we should point it out to the NH Building Code Review Board when the ordinance is submitted.
Dick would like to revisit water tanks section in 7c, suggesting that the wording should be changed, but it was discovered that the wording is verbatim of the code. And in 7d, the word "partitions" should be removed to avoid confusion as to whether they are speaking of removable partitions or permanent partitions. It was decided to strike the word partitions. In 7l decks, replace “as the” with “an.”
Huntley doesn’t understand why we are having a difficult time with this if 3 other towns are working with a document similar to this one with no problems.
Betsey moved to approve the ordinance with the changes made tonight and bring it forward to the voters with the changes as follows: paragraph 7 removing "and land development";7d, removing word "partitions"; 7l change "as the" to "an"; in section 9, remove the last sentence in blue; correct strike through in 11; add space between sections 12 and 13; and remove all words beyond the word "transferred" in section 13. Sarah seconded and all were in favor. The motion to approve the edited ordinance passed.
Norman wonders if there shouldn't be a way to transfer to a new owner. Frank said we need the new owner to reapply to have a current application on file to be certain that requirements are correctly understood. The fee structure may be different; the Selectmen will be working on that.
Public Hearings needed: the voters' petition, and this ordinance.
Articles drafted by Peter Malia, Town Council, were distributed.
Frank moved that we not put forward the 2nd article. We should not support the non-inspection of single family homes as it is a matter of bad public policy, not respecting the wishes of the voters at the last Town meeting. The planning board should not be pursuing this, and Betsey concurs with that. Dave Treadwell seconded the motion. Scott ruled the motion out of order, based on his conversation with Peter Malia on that issue.
Betsey felt that we need to be certain that new buildings are meeting the codes. The Town voted in favor of all inspections at the last Town Meeting. She will not be recommending it to the voters that single family residences be exempted. Dave feels the same way.
Jerry III said the planning board has been working on this ordinance for over a year and accused Frank of obstructing forward movement by opposing it. Jerry commented that the board has a responsibility to put it forward, both of the articles are properly written.
Sarah summarized the history of this ordinance: Selectmen proposed the article, planning board supported the idea, Jerry IV wrote it up, taking into account much of the Planning Board's work to date.
Scott moved to handle the 2nd article by adding sub-paragraph, "n. Single family residential construction", to the list of exemptions in Section 7. Larry seconded. A vote was taken with those in favor being Scott, Larry & John, and those opposed being Frank, Betsey, Sarah and Dave. The motion failed by a 3 to 4 vote.
It was suggested that, instead of the Planning Board, the Selectmen could propose the amendment regarding single family homes, with the public hearing for the ordinance and amendment being held by the Planning Board.
Public hearing is to be scheduled for January 17th at 7:30pm at the Town Offices. No regular meeting will be held on the 10th.
Old business: Mr. Krebbs of the North Country Council has $ 10,000 for transportation issues in North Country towns, but it was determined that Jackson no use for transportation funding at this time.
Adjournment: A motion to adjourn was made by Larry Seibert and seconded by Dave Treadwell. All were in favor, meeting adjourned at 9:41pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ella Cressy
| 
