MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 2009
TOWN OF PITTSFIELD
HOUSING STANDARDS AGENCY

Present –Ch. Elkins, _P_ VCh. Ms. Hast, _A_ Mr. Wolfe, _P_ Lt. Abell, _P_ Mr. Provencher, _P_ HSA Board, Mr. Elliott _A_ (Planning Board). Fred Okrent, _P_ HSA Administrator,
Meeting called to order at 7:15 PM at the Town Hall by Ch. Elkins
Public Present:
Steve Aubertin, Kelly Chisolm, Peter Foss, Paul Metcalf Jr., Richard Munn, James, Susan, & Jeremy Murray, Walt Purtell, Paul & Teresa Riel, Dan Schroth.
1) Appointments
None
2) New Business:
a) Progress Reports; low activity period due to time of year
3) Old Business
a) none
4) Meeting Minutes;
Mr. Wolfe made a motion that the minutes of the meeting of December 8th, 2008 be accepted as presented; 2nd by Lt. Abell Motion passed 3 to 0.
5) Public Input:
a) Ordinance changes Most of the proposed changes were changes in wording, spelling, or formatting or gender neutralization.

Discussion ensued on changing wording of “permits” to “licenses” and permit or license fees to inspection fees. The discussion was protracted and far ranging with a lot of emphasis on the perceived “skirting of due process” and the appeal process. Audience members felt that fines would be imposed and would build during the appeal process. Members of the Board felt that the perception was based on conclusions and assumptions not in evidence and that they were a matter of perspective. Members of the Board also felt that expiration of licenses would provide the incentive or leverage for proper enforcement. Mr. Aubertin, in particular, felt that the “process” was loaded on the side of enforcement and that a license should not expire, but be subject to revocation. That procedure is available now. There was also discussion on seperation of property and owner in the license process. The Board did insert a provision that fines would not be imposed or accrue until completion of the appeal process.

There was also a discussion, triggered by Mr. Munn, on the inspection requirement for owner occupied units. Mr. Munn was strongly opposed to the requirement. There was more support for this position from the audience. An explanation of the “common envelope” doctrine providing the basis for that requirement was discussed.

Comments were made as to the effects of withholding Public Assistance payments for rent if a license was not current or valid, with most of the audience against the provision. This provision was a rule made by the Selectboard and the HSA had no say in the matter.

Opposition to one person being able to trigger a complaint vs. the state requirement of 10 people was brought up. The state requirement for 10 complaints is linked to a building being unfit for human habitation. Landlords were concerned about lack of notification when a complaint was received and the Board agreed that such notification would be made.

Some clarifications were provided as to right of entry, scheduling notices and failure to show provisions were made.

The inspection requirement for inspection upon change of ownership when a license was more than six months old came under fire. After some discussion, the Board agreed to change the period to one year.

At that point, Mr. Aubertin read a letter, for inclusion into the record, from Brandon Guida. A copy of that letter is included at the end of this document. The audience then left.

The board then discussed the reinspection fees for owner occupied units and agreed to move the fee to the second reinspection, if required.

b) Motion by Mr. Wolfe to schedule additional Ordinance Change Hearing at Feb Mtg. 2nd by Lt. Abell. 3 in favor, 0 against, motion passed.
6) Motion to adjourn: Lt. Abell, 2nd by Mr. Wolfe. 3 in favor, 0 against, motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 10:04 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred M. Okrent

Jan 05 2009 10:48AM G034355045 p.2

Law Office
of
J. Brandon Guida,’PLLC

January 5, 2009
VIA FACSIMILE ONLY Housing Standards Board Town of Pittsfield
45 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Re: Housing Standards Ordinance
Dear Board Members:
I am writing because I have some serious concerns about the Housing Standards Ordinance (“HSO”) and unfortunately I cannot attend today’s meeting, I write not only as an apartment owner but also as someone with extensive building experience as a general contractor, and also as an attorney.
First and foremost, having significant experience in legislative drafting, I find the HSO to be both largely ambiguous and very cumbersome. It almost looks like the Ordinance may have been copied and modified from another source or from suggested legislation, but the Board should remember that the purpose of legislation is to clearly define requirements and procedures, which the HSO does not. Time restraints prohibit me from expounding, but the length of the Ordinance itself and the broad-brush application of thousands of pages of code, lends credence to the cumbersome and ambiguous issue.
Second, the HSO incorporates the standards of numerous International codes, however the breadth and complexity of the codes makes the HSO confusing and makes uniform application questionable. Having spent a significant amount of time reviewing and learning portions of the international codes for residential and commercial projects that I have built, I challenge anyone to attempt to uniformly apply all the International Codes. Simply put, it cannot be done because the thousands of pages that are meant to apply to the entire world, many times contradict each other and do not necessarily apply appropriately to apartments in Pittsfield. If the HSO is to be done correctly, the Board and Town officials should take the time to decide which portions and versions of the Codas should reasonably apply to apartments and which should not.

Third, I am wondering why the “permit” is now being called a “license,” unless it is to attempt to make the licensing harder by being person -dependent and not structure-dependent. This is also related to the issue of requiring a new permit for owners, who take title more than six months after the last inspection. Not only is there a question as to the legality of this practice (as any standard must be applied to the building
Jan 05 2009 10:48AM 6034355045 p.3

and not the owner), but the justification for such a requirement escapes me.

Before closing, I would like to relate the two experiences that stick in my. mind regarding enforcement that Inlaying the groundwork, let me say that I have newly constructed apartments that I am proud to own., First memory – when -the Pittsfield inspector told me that I needed to keep the grass (on the highway side) better trimmed (even though no tenants access the highway side of the building and it is mowed weekly). Second memory – when the Pittsfield inspector incorrectly noted several life-safety issues only several weeks after a Certificate of Occupancy had been issued!

Unfortunately, my schedule will not allow me to expound any further, but in closing I would like to emphasize that: (1) the cumbersome and ambiguous HSO should either be rewritten with clearly defined and reasonable standards, or scrapped, (2) any rewriting should incorporate only those code sections that are specifically applicable to apartments in Pittsfield, and (3) apartment ownership should not be an onerous experience.

Very truly yours,

J. Brandon Giuda