Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
  • Author Archives
  • Contact Us

Agencies & Applicants: Who’s side is the Code Enforcement Office on?

by Andrew Getty

Although the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals operate under a different set of rules, have different jurisdiction and have different people, they have one fundamental thing in common…

They have to render decisions based on the merits of the application.

Every application is different. Some are simple, some complicated and some controversial. Some seem to attract the interest of a neighbor or the neighborhood in general. 

Usually few draw enough attention for people to come to the public hearing to express an objection. It’s even rarer people that come to the public hearing in favor of an application. That’s human nature.

Public hearings are designed to give the public the ability to voice their support or concerns.

The boards will listen to all comments, written or otherwise, and then continue with deliberation as required.

The neighborhoods objection or support is not, and should not, be determinative of the board’s decision. But it certainly becomes part of the puzzle in making a decision.

Either board must make a rational decision based on the merits of the case and on the procedural requirements by law.

To approve or deny an application based on the wishes of a neighbor or neighborhood may not meet those standards.

When an application is received in the code office for any project, a clear understanding of the facts for that site must be understood.

Where are existing and proposed structures? Is that information based on a survey? Are all dimensions shown accurately? Is the proposed work closer, the same or farther away from property lines than the existing structures?

Are septic systems involved? Is the application filled out correctly? Is it easy to understand? Does the board have the information needed to render a decision?

Most people have never approached any kind of municipal board, so the process can be intimidating.

This code office tries to assist the applicant in understanding the entire process.

Ultimately, this helps the board by providing good, competent information, which in turn helps to applicant.

We try to advise the applicant as to what kind of questions are likely to be asked by the board. This way they can be better prepared.

We are an advocate of the applicant to the degree we can be… by helping them understand the process, how the board thinks, what standards they have to apply.

It has been perceived that when this office assists an applicant with their application, we are actually aiding and abetting them as well, that we are on their side, that our assistance may be seen as inappropriate or trying to influence the board’s decision, or that this office is trying to defeat neighborhood opposition.

The same could be said if we just hand someone an application to the board and simply said nothing, you are on your own, figure it out. That does not help the applicant or the board.

We ask for professional, competent information and submittals. Thus giving the board the best information possible to help them in their decision making process.

It works both ways.

Why waste the board’s time with poorly contrived application package, lacking the information they need to properly assess the case?

And why waste the applicant’s time by letting them submit poor, inadequate or otherwise unprofessional information?

Many times our interactions with an applicant create a redesign of the project in a different way, or even find an alternative that may not require the Board’s approval. That’s what it’s all about, voluntary compliance.

Our objective has been, and will continue to be, to make the applicant aware of how either board functions, the typical questions they will ask, what type of submittals are needed and how best to present everything in a way that is understandable.

That’s it. But at least we sent the applicant to the board in a way that does not waste the board’s time or the applicant’s time and lets everyone involved have a better understanding of the facts, request, process, rules and procedures.

As for the merits of an approval, an approval with conditions or a denial, that all depends on the merits of the application.

The code office does not take sides. We are an advocate of the process, helping everyone to understand it as much as possible.

That applies to the applicant and the board.

Share Button
More about <a href="http://www.weeklyadk.com/archives/byline/andrew-getty" rel="tag">Andrew Getty</a>
Written by: Andrew Getty on March 31, 2016.
Last revised by: Gina Greco, our reviewer, on
April 11, 2016.
This entry was posted in admin and tagged Talkin' Code on March 31, 2016 by Andrew Getty.

Post navigation

← Mark DeVoldre to join the Navy following graduation Inlet Barnstormers say thanks →
July 2022
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Archives

  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011

Tags

Adirondacks Andrew Getty Cap-21 Card of thanks carol hansen Charles Herr Columnists community Dana Armington Dawn Montanye Daybreak to Twilight DEC events Gary Lee Growing up Adirondack Herr-Story Inlet Jan from Woodgate Jay Lawson Kelly Hamlin kiwanis club Letters to the Editor Letter to the editor Marianne Christy memorial service memorial services Mitch Lee Mrs.Lucky news Niccolls Church Nourished Living Obituary Old Forge Old Forge Library open letter Sen. Seward Senior Activities program senior spotlight SHARP Talkin' Code Town of Webb town of webb school view Webb School Wende Carr
Proudly powered by WordPress