Minutes - 19840227 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 minor change. Ch~1y if it vras a substantial ch~.nge would the owner have to come back to the Planning Department with requested charae. A caoman from the audience inquired i.f she were remodeling her kitchen ~,TOUld she or her contractor have to be bonded. Collins responded that if she hired a sub-contractor he would have to be licensed. If samleone is doing his ovm work, he does not have to have a license, but must have the proper permits. Collins further noted that the bond was a one-time thing for a licensed contractor. A rx~n from the audience eruestianed the requirement for plans signed by an - encineer or architect. Collins indicated this applied only to non-residential development over S45,D00.00. A man from the audience qu2~tianed the 2~-hour notice for inspections. He noted that time delays arx? weather could put personnel an hold and cause a handicap for footing inspections. Jir;Hopper indicated tip eras important to a contractor. He questioned the 48 hour maximum plan review period given limited inspection staff a~ staff time to review plans properly. He felt that the costs of undue bureaucratic requrements vaould be inflationary. He also questioned written confirmation of changes to plans especially on site changes. He questioned the Plumbing section regardinc repairs on the trap side of the house. Collins responded ro permits were required for minor repairs if repairs do not disrupt the provision of water supply and sewer service. Collins cited Section l.ld, page 2 regarding e:;~ptions to permit requirements. Hopper asked that the intent of Section 3.6g be explained asking if employees have to be licensed. Collins responded that the intent was to linut licensed contractors from getting a permit for an unlicensed person. Hopper _ asked how this was to be determined. indicating that in his opinion if the person is a'~le to do the work, he could occasionally look in on the job. Collins agreed that it is difficult to enforce but he, as a licensed contractor in the case described would be superintending. He added that there vmulc. be a problem if the licensed contractor never shovaed up. Fie.noted that the County relys on the ins? ctors on site to note vrhat is being done and by whom. Hopper felt that it would be difficult to comply with the requirement that a stamped, approved set of plans be kept on site. Collins felt on-site approved plans v,~ould allow the inspector to chec}: what a contractor is doing. I-?opper cl~estiorec requiring an s~loyee to c,rait on site for the insmctor. Collins responded that was unnecessary as only the plans need to be kept on site and available. Hopper e:cpressed concern that leaving expensive plans on site for others to easily pick up was mat a good practice. Hopper stressed that the County had a good Inspection Department but those requirements posed an undue burden on the staff and the public. i9i.llhoit referred sections on enforcement as they refer to zoning and subdivision procedures to the Planning Board for review and comment. t~thitted recommended that nxticle 3, Section 3.2 and Article 2, Section 2.1 and 2.2 be deleted and Section 3.6f be rewarded. t•Ialker felt Section 2.5;u may present personality problems anc7 suggested stating a time limit instead. Gledhill questioned kACa the Board :wished to record Section 3.6f. trrhitted respondea his concern was the implication that it be effective forever. P?otion: tlhitted moved 4o delete Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 3.2. °-Zarshall seconded the :notion. VCn'.^: Unanimous (a-0). 13~