Minutes - 19840227 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 v ~% 3 Code Council to perform inspectipns. Having the inspections procedures in the ordinance identifies Kota tae plzn to perform to satisfy the mandate. t~iilJ.hoit co*.r¢:+snted that he thvur,. ht that the main thrust of the ordinance was to bring mobile hales under the ordinance. He questioned if an ad- ministrative sheet referring to the General Statutes would be better than nutting it in the ordinance. Collins responded that corbininq the '74 ans '78 provisions of the Building Cede would tie the ordinance and the General Statutes all together into a recognized/adopted ordinance in Orange County which would give it more strencth as mandated by the State and Commissioners. Gordon inquired where "use" is specified in the Ordinance. Collins re- sponded it was not listed specifically, but there is a space on the actual building permit trhere use is listed, and that it was required on the building r pers~it form. Gordon cited the Planning Board motion regarding enforc~nt procedures with developers starting v;ork before final plans were approved. She noted the Planning Hoard was also interested in tahether regulations needed to be tied to the plans and the question of fines. One section the Planning Soars might be interested in is Article II, Sec- tion 2.5e regarding certificate of occupancy. She expressed concern that the Zoning Ordinance canoliance eras listed in this section. After the building has been built vrhat kinds of considerations are used to see if the building is in compliance tr th the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County. Collins respor~led that when a person applies for a building permit in a zoned township, one of the first things that is checked is to see if they comply faith the applicable recNirements for the zoning district in wl=ich they are located. Building height, setbacks, buffer re;.uirerients, etc. are all checked before issuance of a building permit. Gordon then asked for clarification of fines in Section 3.9. The question was whether the 550.00 fine could be imposed for every day of violation as taell as 30 day imprisonment for each day of violation. Collins responded that that was his understanding. The next question Gordon asked related to Article N Section 3 Periodic Inspections. She questioned the right or ability of an inspector to enter a building for inspection. of v.~zt could be an unsafe building. Collins responded that if an occupant vrould not let an inspector into the building he could secure 2 warrant. Gordon also inquired about Article V, the licensing of energy and insu- lation contractors. She asiced why only these ttao were addressed. Collins responded that 11 other contractors vrere licensed by the State. Gordon noted that throughout the ordinance individuals were referred to as "he". the requested that the ordinance be made gender free. Planning Board member Pearson inquired of Attorney Gledhill about Article 3.1 - Registration of Con*_ractors, if this meant all persons licensed or un- licensed. G1ec'hi11 responded that everyone who carried on the business of a contractor must he licensed. Pearson further noted this seemed to mean everyone getting a building perr.:it vrould need to be bonded. Gledhill responded only if they vrere doing business. Pearson corcnented on Section 3.9a. He noted the term "permissible change" vras used loosely and there needed to be clarification of vrhat is or is not a 1.ermissi.ble change. Collins responds-c that if it was only a minor chance anc in compliance with the Cade, the B~:ilding Inspector could approve the chane~e or,-site. Pearson, cuestioned moving the house or removinn a wall and Collins r. asnonded as ].ana as the house eras in commpliance faith set-backs and it w~. a