Minutes - 19840227 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 correct anything. Gledhill stated that recently the County had been drawn into such problems. F^rhitted further noted that if the County's Inspection De?artment had fulfilled its duties there vrould be no reason for further County involvement, but requested further discussion of the matter. I?e asked if this would be a one time bonc:ing rather than for each job and Collins replied "yes". T°7illhoit inG;,:ired if there had been any instances where this bonding vmuld have been helpful. Collins cited a recent case where a certificate of occupancy was issued ant the hamernmer *.aas not satisfied. He called in a consultant to inspect the structure and he reported violations of the State Building Code. Plost of the violations vrere found to be okay. but there were still sore things remaining tope done to homeovmer's satisfaction. l7hitted inquired if these were severed by the code and Collins responded "no". t^7hitted further stated that the issue was then between the hor.~ovmer and contractor. Collins noted the homeotmer had little recourse except to sue. Commissioner t~5arshall incvired if the County was suppose to interpose in such a situation. i•Ialker noted that usually the financial institution is involved and the homeovmer and the contractor settled these problems. F?e expressed concern that if the Inspector had done his job, it vaas up to the individual, the firm he v;as borrowinn from and the contractor. Gledhill respondec: it eras practical only when the inspector possibly made a mistake and liability could be determines: by negligence. Marshall inquired as to hose bondinc, contractors would help the County as far as inspections were concerned. Gledhill responded again that if an ir,- spector did rralte a mistake, the County would be held liable. ~~fi itted incuires if 3.6a and 3.6i were mandated and Collins responded "yes". He also asked ebout 3.F j and Aarshall responded that it was mandated also. tlals:er inquired if the contractors had to taste an exam to be licensed. Planning Board menber Pearson responded there was an exam to be taE:en. •The class .of license is indicated by the difficulty of the exam. Additional limits are based on knowledge of building and financial condition of the contractor. t•9arshall inquired if 3.6 feet (no permit shall be issued to any person who has failed after notice to remedy defective work or to otherwise comply with this ordinance or the re5ulatory codes adopted herein) were forever and Collins responded "no". She inquired how Iona. Collins responded that other permits could be issued after compliance with notice to remedy defective wont. A time limit could be specified. - County Attorney Gledhill had revieweG the proposed ordinance, and noted that Chapter 130 had been repealed and replaced by 130A (Items 3.6 c and d)'. This does not change the substance of these sections. T•~illhoit questioned Section ].. la about provisions not applying tb farm builcings located outside the building regulation jurisdiction of any munic- ipality. He ing:ired if farm buildings inside jurisdiction of a municipality were subject to the provisions. Collins respor~ed this eras a requirement in the General Statutes and of the State Building Cocie. `his gives the municipalities the right to control everything in their jurisdiction. Collins indicated that the argarizational r;~atter of the Inspections" could be set up ac~inistratively but having it as part of the ordinance Dives _ lecislative blessing to the _Tnspection Division itself. It identifies the responsibilities of the divivion. i•~7e are uns:er mandate by the State 3uilding ~. V .G