TRR wrote:Chief Wentzell was assisted in his presentation by Kevin Saisi who passed him notes and made audible comments.
Just for clarification... I did pass ONE note to Chief Wentzell. It was after he and the board went on endlessly discussing how to get around the 2003 Life Safety Code. The problem was how to permit deficiencies that exist under the 2003 code, but not under the 2009 code that the board expects to present for a change this June. The town would be liable if they just failed to enforce the code, which could lead to costly litigation. As has been stated previously, the law needs to be enforced until changed. The suggestion I passed on to Mr. Wentzell was that such deficiencies be sited, but that the building owners be allowed ot put the resolution of the problem in their plan of correction. Then when the new code is enacted, the violation is no longer valid, and neither the town nor the building owner has violated the law.
As for the ONE comment I made, it was in response to a question raised as to why the rule had to be followed. I indicated the reason was be cause they had to follow "the letter of the law".
The 2003 code includes provisions that have been removed from the 2009 edition for a reason. It is perfectly legal for someone to put such a provision in a plan of correction, which bides them time. In this case, the loophole is a logical way to come to a common-sense resolution to the problem without violating the code. I would suggest that before such action were to be taken, that a lawyer be consulted to assure that our understanding of the code is correct.
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum