 |
TOWN OF JACKSON
PO BOX 268
Jackson, NH 03846
Building Permit
Work Session
~
The meeting came to order at 5:30 pm. Present were Selectmen Jerry Dougherty, John Allen, and Bob Thompson. Also present were Scott Badger, Larry Siebert, Ella Cressy, Frank Benesh, and Hank Benesh.
Small side note: Jay Henry received bids for paving, and F R Carroll came in about $20,000 cheaper, and he would like feedback from Selectmen. Road projects are for Tyrol, top coat Green Hill Rd, Wilson Rd, and a couple other small projects. Bob feels that as the Road agent, Bob would take his recommendations.
Selectmen Chair Jerry Dougherty, reported that Christine Fillmore felt Building Inspector position should be a town position, and we need to be cautious on how we need to be doing this and the Local Government Center (LGC) are clamping down on doing it this way. There are concerns and we should duly consider what is going on there. The Selectmen can contract out for outside help if they act as Code enforcement. The legislative body has not named a building inspector or a local enforcement agency. Paul Sanderson and Christine Fillmore feel that Jackson has not duly adopted a process for enforcing the State Building Code. The Selectmen should not be the local enforcement system. The Building Inspector needs to follow the building code laws. The two attorneys we have consulted have voiced their opinions. Attorney Malia, citing the
Doctrine of Administrative Gloss, says keep enforcing the way we are; and Attorney Upton had been handling the prudential affairs of the town. We need to once and for all decide who issues the permits, is it the Board of Selectmen or is it the Building Inspector. Technically, we are contracting out for the building inspector services.
There are concerns in the legality of how we are doing things. Either passes off all of the enforcement to the Building Inspector, as the law specifies, but then the question becomes who has the authority to do so.
Jerry ran by her the Town meeting votes, and she thought we ran short of what the law requires. We can either continue as we are or we could discontinue what we are doing and just enforce the zoning ordinance.
Scott Badger asked if it was possible for selectmen to act as code enforcement officer by vote of legislative body. Jerry’s interpretation is that there is nothing in the law that allows that, we are not a home rule state. RSA 675-3 allows the board of selectmen to offer amendments to enforcement. Where the Planning Board wants the Selectmen to do this, that’s a possibility anyway. The ISO recommended that:
- Develop job description for building inspector
- Hand over the responsibilities to that building inspector
Jerry has written up a sample job description for a Building Inspector, which we can go over if we want to. Bob recognizes that we haven’t had the legislative body grant/approve the local enforcement officer and concept or taken the steps to do so. What we have in place is supported as well. Having the Building Inspector as an employee is addressing this by putting this before the body in March. We need to know if the Building Inspector will be an employee or a contractor, and a job description regardless of which for the long range plans. What we can change today is the permit application, other than that it will go to town meeting. Either the Townspeople will vote it in, or they won’t. We won’t be changing it radically now, so it will be the status quo until we go to the voters in March. Bob asked, “What are
you thinking, change it now or wait until March?” Jerry feels we can wait. We don’t have time right now to do that, but we will between now and March. John agrees.
Jerry feels what’s been lacking so far in this process is that the voters don’t know what should be inspected. The building inspector is the one that should be making the decisions, not us. Go over what the duties will be. We need to educate the public about this process and who is responsible for what. The Selectmen will supervise, but allow the inspector to ultimately make the decisions on what permits will be issued. Jerry then started going over the Building Inspector’s job description taken from an LGC sample he edited to meet Jackson’s needs.
Bob asked regarding the staffing/contacting selectmen’s involvement, what we need to accomplish. Jerry stated the education of voters. It would be a new department for the town. Selectmen can enforce zoning, but inspector would do all other aspects. Bob asked if we need to make a decision as to whether we pull building aspect out of zoning. Jerry said we could do it a couple of different ways. Peter Malia suggested we separate it by the letter of the RSA. It would be clean and separate. LGC didn’t feel it needed to. The biggest piece is how it fits into the budget, and how we charge fees. Building inspections cost between 10 and 60 thousand per year. Bea Davis asked if the Selectmen knew what we had paid Inspector Chalmers over the last year or two, and Jerry replied that we do. Jerry then went on to say that
the legislative body may set the rate of the Building Inspector. How do we present it? Do we allow the Voters to set it, or should it be the Selectmen?
Bob sees the big three items are:
1. Employee or contractor
2. Level of selectmen involvement
3. What would we recommend, for enforcement to remain in the zoning
Ordinance or pulled out as stand-alone piece? Are there more big decisions
other than those, Jerry and John both said no.
Jerry went on to say the building inspector would be able to ask for professional assistance to be able to enforce properly. The position would be part time, and no benefits, their support staff would be what we currently have in the Selectmen’s Office. Selectmen would be oversight, the inspector would form the building permit application, and how fees are collected with input from the Board of Selectmen. John’s concern is that the legislative body would set the rate, and if we had to replace, we may not be able to hire at rate approved. Jerry feels we need to research that point further. Jerry had discussed with Officer Jette, and he would like to have it stand separate, where could it exist?
Bob feels in making the decision on whether the building inspector is an employee or contractor, it will go a long way towards directing us.
Jerry feels that the violation section is where we have failed recently, we need to use the proper RSA numbers, and when to use violation, specifics, and stop work order, and fines. Bob would like to see that document at the next work session.
Planning Board member George Howard’s recommendations pretty much mirror the sample job description we are looking at for adopting for our town. Bob wants to be able to say final draft should be a collaborative effort with the planning board. Working together will make more sense for when we put it before the legislative body and offer the Planning Board a copy of the sample job description. Have it adopted by the board, and available for viewing. It is not clarified for Jerry who has the ultimate authority to appoint/hire the building inspector. Jerry would present this to the public, and let it be known that the current inspector qualifies with all of the standards, and while he may not be doing all now, they would after this is adopted. Jerry would like to make sure that the inspector would collaborate with the Fire
Inspector, and any other professional as needed on the different inspections requested. He does that now, but wants to make sure it is spelled out in the job description. Scott applauds George’s effort to make things transparent to the public. Bob feels we need to make sure we have all the bases covered. Scott feels that working collaboratively will be to every one’s benefit. This is a good start to that. We will be scheduling a work session, and we want it to be a joint session between the Planning Board and Selectmen. Jerry feels the same. They then went through the LGC’s suggested job description for the building inspector.
Bob feels that section 6 would be collaborated on between selectmen and inspector as to when violation/stop works would be issued and how to do that could be part of the minimum qualification section. It was suggested to refer to bar Association for the guidelines for fines and etcetera. It would give us more leverage on fines if we have a set policy after violations are identified, instead of just issuing a stop work order, this way you can collect fines. Holly Lewis said that in the codebooks, these issues are addressed. Larry Siebert feels that it could be in the building permit application to protect the homeowner so they know what to expect. The more you put into the job description now will help the next board/inspector down the line and that would be part of the policy. We would like to have protection against issuing violations on
building projects that weren’t on the permit issued. Jerry thinks this should be on the building permit application itself, have FAQ section on the application. Jerry and Larry want to make the application more user friendly. Bob wants to make sure we are okay with the job description. He wants more time to go over George’s version and compare to the LGC suggested version before we finalize the description. Are we ready to say the job description is done? Jerry replied no, we need to have a joint meeting with Planning Board, all three selectmen agree on this point. Bob asked, “How do we merge the two versions or do we need to compare them and collaborate to come up with a final version?” Scott Badger asked how this would be presented to the Townspeople?
As to the building permit, Jerry sees two issues with it that need to be corrected in the short term:
- Fee structure, when and how to collect the checks. LGC says we can’t collect more than we pay out for the permit process.
- Electrical work by an electrician not necessarily, and the RSA numbers referenced are not correct, and should be removed. Add $275 fine for the 1st day then $550 for each additional day without a permit.
Bob commented item two feels like threatening language but feels we need to correct the inaccuracies and add FAQ’s, similar to Barnstead. This puts the responsibilities back on the homeowner. Should there be separate applications for major projects, minor projects, electrical, plumbing? Are we comfortable doing this with a collaborative spirit with the planning board? John is concerned that the voters will vote it down, then where does that leave us. Jerry says this is why he wants to have a joint meeting with the planning board. In the short term, do minor fixes. Bob suggested talking briefly at the next selectman’s meeting and address the job description item by item that should have immediate changes.
Jerry thanked all present for attending including Larry Siebert, Scott Badger, Hank and Frank Benesh, and Ella Cressy for taking minutes. Jerry thinks we should be able to have hearings by November, with a work session prior. Scott said the planning board would have one within the next month. Given the discourse in town, the more meetings the better to educate people as to what we are going to do. The planning board will set the job description aside until selectmen are ready for the enforcement piece. Jerry feels as far as the process for adopting, the planning board working on that would be the best. Whom is authority given to? Jerry thinks selectmen would be ready to attend next work session. Scott will email the targeted date to selectmen. Bob is ok with July 12th, or 26th provided those dates work for the other two selectmen.
Larry asked if the planning board could have a copy of the LGC version too. Jerry will make copies for them.
Bob moved and John seconded to adjourn. All were in favor; the work session was adjourned at 7pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ella Cressy
Administrative Assistant
| |
