Is the revenue from building permits used to reduce the tax rate? I always thought it was, but it seems that this was not considered in the debate. The "waiver", or whatever it is to be called, approaches $100,000. Would a Nottingham homeowner be eligible for a similar "waiver" if he were to put an addition on his home?
My understanding is that the fees represent income to the town, and, eventually affect taxes.
It would be highly unusual for a homeowner to get into the same circumstance. There would need to be one homeowner who paid the fee and partially completed the structure. Then that homeowner would have to have their house taken via a tax lien. Then a new owner would have to buy the property from the town and that owner would want to complete the work that the prior owner left unfinished.
So there must be some sort of "rule", "practice", or "precedent" to cover this type of unusual situation. I wonder what the benefit is to the town. Parenthetically,
if the board had agreed to charge another few hundred, we might have been able to get the Newsletter back. Also to be noted is the fact that building permits expire after 365 days. Are building permits transferable to a new owner - in this case, two owners removed from the original applicant?
There is a rule. The owner petitioned the board for an exception to the rule. No precedent for the exception was discussed; although the board did discuss whether their action would set a precedent. They decided it would not.
Selectman Decker question whether a 1 year expiration was appropriate for commercial buildings, as commercial construction can often take longer than that, sometimes much longer. He asked the Planning Board to consider revising its fee structure to recognize this.
Thank you again, Doug. You made my point exactly! Your comment "the details of which I figured would be of little interest to most readers" might indicate that the input from the Building Inspector on this matter was not important enough for even you, and I would guess it is not important enough for the Board of Selectman to listen to their EMPLOYEE, or even back what apparently had been invoked by the Building Inspector!
So.... what does the Building Inspector use for fees to charge the next person that comes in asking for a building permit?
I don't recall any recommendation from the Building Inspector or any discussion about the input of other employees. The issue was about the fees established by the Planning Board. The owner felt that being charged a fee that had previously been paid was unfair. The unusual circumstance was that the completion of the building was unusually delayed by circumstances associated with the tax lien.
Doug, thanks for the reporting. I'm curious as to whether the Building Inspector was discussed as providing information related to the former USA Springs property building permits. Those permits expired over 10 years ago and I'm pretty sure the new rules and regulations and associated fees should be invoked for this project no matter what the applicant chooses to do. I do not understand the waiving of fees by the Board of Selectman.
It would appear that if you don't live in town you don't need to pay the fees! Additionally, it would appear that if you live in town, you cannot work for the Town as evidenced by a whole series of fired employees!
I recommend watching the video. It was a long discussion, the details of which I figured would be of little interest to most readers.
Yes, the permits expired long ago. I do not recall any discussion of any new rules and regulations being relevant. The owner is following the plan approved nearly 20 years ago.
Residence seemed to have nothing to do with the board's deliberations. The grounds for the exception appeared to be based on the history of the property and the uniqueness of it being a commercial development, which for Nottingham is rare.
Doug, there are plenty of commercial properties and businesses on Route 4, and have been there for many years. Is the BOS trying to say that the people in charge of assigning fees for these entities don't know what to do? I find it hard to believe this fact. I DO believe that the BOS might have issues in these areas which is why they hire people to do it! Let the employees do what they are assigned BOS!
The issue is not about the existing commercial buildings on Rt 4 but the creation of new ones. The concern is that the existing fee structure established by the Planning Board does not take into consideration the extra complexities of commercial construction. The reason for this is that the town has had so little commercial construction.
Doug, a quick search of Town Reports indicates the Town purchased a road grader in 2006. I'm not sure if this was the latest purchase, but certainly reflects less than 40 years old!
Outstanding reporting
Is the revenue from building permits used to reduce the tax rate? I always thought it was, but it seems that this was not considered in the debate. The "waiver", or whatever it is to be called, approaches $100,000. Would a Nottingham homeowner be eligible for a similar "waiver" if he were to put an addition on his home?
My understanding is that the fees represent income to the town, and, eventually affect taxes.
It would be highly unusual for a homeowner to get into the same circumstance. There would need to be one homeowner who paid the fee and partially completed the structure. Then that homeowner would have to have their house taken via a tax lien. Then a new owner would have to buy the property from the town and that owner would want to complete the work that the prior owner left unfinished.
So there must be some sort of "rule", "practice", or "precedent" to cover this type of unusual situation. I wonder what the benefit is to the town. Parenthetically,
if the board had agreed to charge another few hundred, we might have been able to get the Newsletter back. Also to be noted is the fact that building permits expire after 365 days. Are building permits transferable to a new owner - in this case, two owners removed from the original applicant?
There is a rule. The owner petitioned the board for an exception to the rule. No precedent for the exception was discussed; although the board did discuss whether their action would set a precedent. They decided it would not.
Selectman Decker question whether a 1 year expiration was appropriate for commercial buildings, as commercial construction can often take longer than that, sometimes much longer. He asked the Planning Board to consider revising its fee structure to recognize this.
Thank you again, Doug. You made my point exactly! Your comment "the details of which I figured would be of little interest to most readers" might indicate that the input from the Building Inspector on this matter was not important enough for even you, and I would guess it is not important enough for the Board of Selectman to listen to their EMPLOYEE, or even back what apparently had been invoked by the Building Inspector!
So.... what does the Building Inspector use for fees to charge the next person that comes in asking for a building permit?
I don't recall any recommendation from the Building Inspector or any discussion about the input of other employees. The issue was about the fees established by the Planning Board. The owner felt that being charged a fee that had previously been paid was unfair. The unusual circumstance was that the completion of the building was unusually delayed by circumstances associated with the tax lien.
Doug, thanks for the reporting. I'm curious as to whether the Building Inspector was discussed as providing information related to the former USA Springs property building permits. Those permits expired over 10 years ago and I'm pretty sure the new rules and regulations and associated fees should be invoked for this project no matter what the applicant chooses to do. I do not understand the waiving of fees by the Board of Selectman.
It would appear that if you don't live in town you don't need to pay the fees! Additionally, it would appear that if you live in town, you cannot work for the Town as evidenced by a whole series of fired employees!
I recommend watching the video. It was a long discussion, the details of which I figured would be of little interest to most readers.
Yes, the permits expired long ago. I do not recall any discussion of any new rules and regulations being relevant. The owner is following the plan approved nearly 20 years ago.
Residence seemed to have nothing to do with the board's deliberations. The grounds for the exception appeared to be based on the history of the property and the uniqueness of it being a commercial development, which for Nottingham is rare.
Doug, there are plenty of commercial properties and businesses on Route 4, and have been there for many years. Is the BOS trying to say that the people in charge of assigning fees for these entities don't know what to do? I find it hard to believe this fact. I DO believe that the BOS might have issues in these areas which is why they hire people to do it! Let the employees do what they are assigned BOS!
The issue is not about the existing commercial buildings on Rt 4 but the creation of new ones. The concern is that the existing fee structure established by the Planning Board does not take into consideration the extra complexities of commercial construction. The reason for this is that the town has had so little commercial construction.
How old is the road grader?
If I recall correctly it's somewhere between 40 and 45 years old. It's on the CIP for replacement in a couple of years.
Doug, a quick search of Town Reports indicates the Town purchased a road grader in 2006. I'm not sure if this was the latest purchase, but certainly reflects less than 40 years old!
That's likely correct. What I remember most clearly is that it is near the end of its expected service life.
Yes, the Highway Department seems to use 15 year service life for ALL equipment!
Here's the article about the CIP and the grader https://nottingham.substack.com/p/2024-to-2029-capital-improvement