LMTS received an interesting e mail from Lebanon resident Chip Harlow this morning.
In reaching out to Chip, he has agreed to allow me to use his e mail toward better understanding in the very complicated world of Building Code Ordinance discussion.
Many of us here in Lebanon do not understand Building Code Ordinances. We arrive at the poles like virgins arriving at the top of a mountain. Whether we are thrown from a cliff and sacrificed all depends on how much we take the time to educate ourselves prior to making that final check mark on the ballot.
Chip has spelled out his personal objections to the passing of the proposed Lebanon Building Code Ordinance, which will be presented on the May 10, 2016 Lebanon Town Ballot.
***Please note that this e mail was shared with permission of it's creator, the information expressed are the comments and beliefs of the resident submitting it for your review. They are the statement of the individual and not of LMTS, regardless of whether we agree or do not......ALL page friends are welcome to submit information, objections, or comments via the Facebook comments section, or via e mail for publication and consideration. No comments or e mails will be shared without the author's name attached for validity and accountability of statement.***
Thank You. ~~Deborah Dorey Wilson, Lebanon Maine Truth Seekers.
Below, please find the statement by Mr. Harlow, addressing Lebanon residents........
So, comparing the current CEO ordinance with the proposed, there is actually a huge difference in permit fees! If you look at current ordinance, including the addendum approved on June 8, 2010, additions and alterations for single family is $4.00 per thousand of estimated cost. So if cost is $10k, then permit would be $40. For example, let's build a 800sqft garage for say $20k. Current ordinance would charge $80, proposed ordinance would charge $320. Big difference!!!!!!! Proposed ordinance is 40 cents a square foot. Upon careful review of the two ordinances, it was noticed that there may actually be a transcribing/typo error. It looks like the attempt was to use the addendum from 2010 for the fees in the proposed ordinance but they combined two lines by accident and left out some wording.
Current Ordinance
A. Minimum Building fees for single family residential: $40.00 Commercial: $50.00
B. Additions & Alterations: $4.00 per thousand for single family residential & $8.00 per thousand commercial (my note: per thousand is referring to estimated cost)
C. Include additions with new construction & increase square foot cost of construction .40 cents for single family residential & .75 cents commercial.
D. Include fees for starting construction without a permit, to be double the permit fees or $100.00 whichever is greater
E. Assess re-inspection fees $25.00 to be paid prior to the next scheduling of an appointment
Proposed Ordinance
A. Exactly the same as above.
B. Additions and alterations: include additions with new construction and increase square foot cost of construction .40 cents per square foot for single family residential & .75 cents per square foot commercial
C. Fees for starting construction without a permit shall be double the permit fee or $100.00, whichever is greater.
D. Re-inspection fees of $25.00 shall be paid prior to the scheduling of an inspection appointment
As you can see, in the new ordinance, lines B and C of current ordinance have been combined into just B of the proposed, and consequently has a totally different meaning and will potentially cost the resident a lot more money.
New construction would be the same. No difference btw current and proposed.
Also, current ordinance only requires permits for alterations that would change the overall height or footprint of the home. So, if I were to remodel my kitchen, no permit is required, but under the proposed ordinance, one would be. I don't necessarily disagree, but this has not been fully explained to the people, and since a permit would now be needed, and extra cost to the resident is incurred.
These are just my initial thoughts. Also, the current ordinance allows third party inspectors. There is conflicting wording in the proposed ordinance about the use of third party inspectors for residential.
Chip Harlow
