HB1652

I oppose HB 1652 as proposed. This proposal is finding a "half baked" solution of a non-existent problem........ Minor Home Improvement definition is flawed. Should be based on the activity/scope of the “improvement” not a monetary value and who is assigning the $ value? A new addition (increased footprint) may need zoning ordinance compliance, possibly a variance due to setback requirements on the lot. Currently under the provisions of the Building Code, the Building Official shall review and issue a permit within reasonable time. Likewise the Building Official shall notify of deficiencies within a reasonable time. Refer to Chapters 1 of the IRC (residential) and IBC (commercial) codes. The proposed 2 day limit is not practical for municipalities with a part time Building Official or when one may be on a week vacation. Certificates of Occupancy may be more complex with other municipal agencies involved and to issue by default of a time limit expiration, is reckless. What if there are unresolved “failed” inspection issues and not ready for a Certificate of Occupancy? The proposed 2 day limit is not practical for municipalities with a part time Building Official or when one may be on a week vacation. I cautiously approve of third party plan review (issuance of permit) and issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, but again with reasonable time allowance requirements.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.