Fire Safety issues halt construction of Kindergarten?
EDITORIAL NOTE- There is a substantial difference in the law as it refers to zoning ordinances and the laws relating to Building safety codes. Towns may have some exemptions from zoning regulation but NEVER FROM SAFETY CODES. Public use buildings have and need strict safety codes. Failure to comply with these codes has an historically tragic legacy - please keep this in mind as you read the following article and comments.
How could this happen? How were they able to beak ground without permits? without going before the planning board? Where were the selectmen? Remember, how pro-active selectman Sapia was about halting the improvements to the field behind the academy, and the parking lot, which were being performed by volunteered at no cost to the town? Where was he when the new school construction which is going to house OUR kids is unsafe? The selectmen were all over getting a free footpath through the woods, claiming fore safety issues, but now, in a building that is already without sprinklers in 2/3 of its structure, we are all standing by while this building is being built unsafe?
How can any building be built in town without passing our panning and zoning regulations?
We want these questions answered! And thank you, Chief Murphy for bringing this to the towns attention.
EDITORIAL-
A voice of compassion, an example of fairness and reasonable government.
One who believes in the strength and comfort you, your children and your family can draw from good government leadership.
A person who knows Atkinson is our home -- our most important possession that must be preserved and protected through fair taxes and sound community planning and where our children must be safe to grow to become a new generation of leaders.
One who knows that the citizens of Atkinson are all neighbors with her leadership to be dedicated and responsive to all.
One who believes that when those from Atkinson have served our nation and honors are deserved, those honors must be given.
In Valerie Tobin, we now have a leader we know we can entrust with these responsibilities because they are part of her character.
It is our honor to endorse Valerie for election to Atkinson’s Board of Selectmen.
Just a note for those who wish to count the deer.
In January 08 this blog had 16,000 hits and 1,500 unique visitors (for the month).
In 2007 this blog had over 100,000 hits and 5,750 unique visitors (for the year).
EDITORIAL-
"I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense . . ." [TP, 1776]
We take no small measure of umbrage at such a hostile official act against this BLOG’s patron. Therefore, a timely Editorial comment is both appropriate and necessary.
Discussion of Atkinson’s financial direction, from any viewpoint, is fundamental and encouraged and we will always attempt to limit and correct errors.
However, Righteous indignation towards purported error of such inconsequential nature is not appropriate.
The ENTIRE car deal is problematic. If it was caused by poor judgement, improper exercise of authority, neglect or mistake or even specious reasoning, this will never trump the facts that the entire questionable transaction started and ended within a very small circle of confidants.
We find the entire circumstances surrounding the disposition of the police Cruiser highly irregular at the least and the "explanations" somewhat trifling and exhaustive of our intellect.
Mr. Consentino: It’s time to go. Being Chief of Atkinson’s Police Department is NOT a birthright. That is a fabled legend of yesteryear.
Historically in Atkinson, police chief appointments were made "under the hand of the selectmen" for terms of one year at a time, as was also the case in the beginning of Mr. Consentino’s assorted and discontinuous stream of appointments to this position.
Your only remaining credential established on a claim of indispensability has faded.
So time is neigh. Plan a graceful exit, Clean out your desk, Accept the gratitude and tearful sentiments from some. We plan no editorial recriminations. It is time. Thank you for your service, We wish you a long and happy retirement. Bon Voyage.
LETTER
"To All Atkinson Residents,
I am writing to ask for your help. A member of the Atkinson Police Department needs our help. I am here to ask for your help in Corporal John Lapham's fight for his life. As you are aware, John has been diagnosed with Leukemia. He has been once again hospitalized with an infection that is threatening his life. He is one of the bravest people that I have ever met. He has never asked of anything from the residents of the town. Now is our chance to step up and help both him and his family out. As everyone is aware John has been out of work for a few months. His family has been busy helping John to get better. He needs our help, and I am hoping that this town can step up to the plate and help. From the moment that I met John, I have admired him. He does alot, but never asks for anything in return. He has helped so many people in this town. I for one am one of those people. Please help him.
There is a fund set-up in his name at TDBanknorth in Plaistow. Any amount will help John, while he is out of work. It would be great if this town could help ease a burden off his wife.
Thank You
Also if anyone would like to send a card, please address it to:
John Lapham
c/o Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Ctr.
Inpatient mail
75 Francis Street
Boston, MA 02115
United States
Please show Corporal John Lapham, that this community can stand up and show our support to those in need. I for one, miss John and can not wait until he can get better and return to work. Please show him that we support him. "
8 comments:
In NH, governmental entities (e.g. school boards) are not required to comply with local building and zoning ordinances for governmental uses of property except as required by state statute. This was definitively decided by the NH supreme court in McGrath v. Manchester in 1973.
RSA 674:54 requires governmental entities to give advance notice to local boards in the case of a "substantial change in use" of government-owned property, and to participate in non-binding local public hearings.
Presumably adding a couple of classrooms onto an existing school building would not be a "substantial change in use".
Here is the text of the 1973 court decision:
McGrath v. City of Manchester, 113 N.H. 355, 307 A.2d 830 (N.H., 1973)
Page 830
307 A.2d 830
113 N.H. 355
Frederick F. McGRATH et al.
v.
CITY OF MANCHESTER et al.
No. 6566.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
June 29, 1973.
Page 831
Kenneth R. McHugh and Emile R. Bussiere, Manchester (Mr. McHugh orally), for plaintiffs.
J. Francis Roche, City Sol., by brief and orally for defendant city.
[113 N.H. 356] Frederic T. Greenhalge, Concord, for defendant R. C. Foss & Son, Inc., filed no brief.
DUNCAN, Justice.
The plaintiffs, as residents of a single family zone in Manchester, seek to enjoin the city from constructing on city land within the zone and in the vicinity of the Derryfield golf course a garage for the storage of trucks and tractors of the city parks and recreation department, and for the repair and maintenance of vehicles of its fire department. There was evidence that alternative sites were not available and that appropriate screening would be provided. The defendant's motion to dismiss the action was denied by the Superior Court (Mullavey, J.) subject to defendant's exception. Following a further hearing the presiding justice found and ruled that the proposed construction is governmental function, and in violation of the Manchester zoning ordinance, and transferred to this court without ruling the question 'as to whether or not the City is bound by the terms of the ordinance . . .' To this order the plaintiffs seasonably excepted, and all questions presented by the exceptions of the parties were reserved and transferred.
In a recent Opinion of the Justices, 113 N.H. --, 304 A.2d 872 (1973) the justices of this court advised the house of representatives that 'New Hampshire adopts the majority rule that a county is not required to comply with a city zoning ordinance in the erection and construction of a courthouse' a project which is an essential function of government. The same majority rule supports the view that a city is not bound by its own zoning ordinance in the performance of its governmental functions absent by statutory provision to the contrary. 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 25.15 (1965 Rev. vol.); 2 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 9.03 (1968); 2 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning 53-1 to 53-6 (1960). The extent to which any governmental unit shall be immune from zoning requirements is a matter within legislative control; but our enabling act is silent upon the subject. RSA 31:60-31:89; see Note, Zoning Immunity, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 869, 879-83 (1971).
[113 N.H. 357] We recognize, as plaintiffs point out, that the act contains a special provision relating to structures of public utilities. RSA 31:62; In re Monmouth Consolidated Water Co., 47 N.J. 251, 259-260, 220 A.2d 189, 193 (1966). Similarly the Manchester ordinance contains provisions relating to recreational areas and 'essential public services', such as facilities of electric power and telephone companies. Since such uses are commonly privately owned and operated, no purpose to authorize the regulation of governmental activities and uses is reasonably to be implied therefrom.
It is established in this jurisdiction that the control of fires is a governmental function (Reynolds v. Nashua, 93 N.H. 28, 35 A.2d 194 (1943); Shea v. Portsmouth, 98 N.H. 22, 94 A.2d 902 (1953)), as is the
Page 832
operation and maintenance of public parks and recreational areas. Piasecny v. Manchester, 82 N.H. 458, 136 A. 357 (1926); Harkinson v. Manchester, 90 N.H. 554, 5 A.2d 721 (1939). Thus the finding and ruling of the trial court that the construction proposed by the city in this case is a governmental function is supported by the law and the evidence.
In these circumstances, the conclusion follows that the city is not bound to comply with the zoning ordinance, but may construct the building in furtherance of its governmental functions without regard thereto. Nehrbas v. Lloyd Harbor, 2 N.Y.2d 190, 159 N.Y.S.2d 145, 140 N.E.2d 241, 61 A.L.R.2d 965, (1957). Stiger v. Village of Hewlett, 283 App.Div. 827, 129 N.Y.S.2d 38 (1954); Kedroff v. Springfield, 127 Vt. 624, 256 A.2d 457 (1969); Annot., 61 A.L.R.2d 970 (1968). We hold that in the construction and use of the proposed building, the city is not bound by the terms of a its zoning ordinance.
Exceptions overruled; remanded.
KENISON, C.J., did not sit; the others concurred.reuben
Thank you Curt Springer. The halting of the school project was a power play move by nobody less then our own Fire Chief, Michael Murphy. He didn't get what he wants, so he calls in the State Fire Marshall. Timberlane did notify the proper departments within Atkinson boards. The notification was a courteous move on behalf of Timberlane. They didnt even have to do this. Unfortunately this move by our Chief was not well thought out. The consequences of his actions just may result in delaing the opening of the school for September. So Michael, what did this really accomplish?
I'm sorry, anon, I thought the STATE FIRE MARSHALL found fire safety violations. If our chief knew there were violations, I would EXPECT him to notify the proper authorities, our kids are going to be in that building. Remember all the guff Jack Sapia gave Murphy two years ago, when we all found out that the old section of the Academy, was not sprinklered? I would guess he is simply protecting himself from recriminations in the future for duties he did not have the authority to enforce on his own.
Actually, Anon @ 6:28
The SCHOOL notified the state fire marshall when local electricians declined to sign off on work performed, because of the lack of permits. They called the state fire marshall in an attempt to do an end run around the Town of Atkinson. They were warned by Chief Murphy, of the need for inspections and permits 4 months ago, but in their arrogance chose not to obtain them.
I want to know why the school board would choose to build an unsafe building to school 500 of Atkinson's children in?
They were warned two years ago of the fire safety issue with the sprinklers, and have so far igmored that, where is our school board in taking care of this? And the chairman of that board is an Atkinson resident, William Baldwin.
Here is the relevant law:
CHAPTER 155-A
NEW HAMPSHIRE BUILDING CODE
Section 155-A:4
155-A:4 Permit Required. – Before starting new construction or renovation of schools, halls, theaters or other public buildings the person responsible for such construction shall obtain a permit signed by the board of selectmen, after its due consideration of any written recommendations of the fire chief. In municipalities that have adopted an enforcement mechanism pursuant to RSA 674:51, the permit under this section shall conform to the locally adopted process.
Source. 2002, 8:3, eff. Sept. 14, 2002.
CHAPTER 155-A
NEW HAMPSHIRE BUILDING CODE
Section 155-A:7
155-A:7 Enforcement Authority. –
I. The local enforcement agency appointed pursuant to RSA 674:51 shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of the state building code, provided, however, that where there is no building inspector, the state fire marshal or the state fire marshal's designee shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of the state building code, subject to the review provisions contained in RSA 155-A:10.
II. Upon the request of a local enforcement agency, state agencies, boards, and commissions may provide advisory services and technical assistance concerning any building or any construction project in the local enforcement agent's jurisdiction.
III. The local enforcement agency appointed to enforce the state building code shall have the authority to inspect all buildings, structures, construction sites, and other places in the jurisdiction. If consent for such inspection is denied or not reasonably obtainable, the local enforcement agency may obtain an administrative inspection warrant under RSA 595-B.
Source. 2002, 8:3, eff. Sept. 14, 2002.
As you can see the School Board had the responsibility to pull permits from the town, and the inspections MUST be done.
Where are Atkinson's School Board representatives?
So Mr. Baldwin, as School Board Chairman this is your responsibility, so tell us, why would the school board authorize procedures that would lead to an uninspected, potentially unsafe building to educate 500 of your constituents kids in?
Chairman Baldwin, and Mr. Mascola are notably silent on this issue, probably hoping it will go away so that they are not forced to demonstrate their inadequate leadership abilities
Mr. Springer, good catch with regard to your research concerning government entities.
I'm not familiar with who is actually performing the work (construction) at the school?
I would have expected that if the additional classrooms were going to be built, the builder / general contractor (or whomever) would have taken responsibility for the package deal including permits etc.
I think it's one thing to try and save a nickel when able, however with today's construction technology, for a simple addition to the Academy,I see no reason why it could not be built to code.
The minute the kindergarden was voted in favor of, although there would be no cost the first year (?), we all knew there would be some form of tax burden arriving sooner or later.
I see the permitting issue as a check & balance to ensure the general contractor or builder is ensuring some quality to their work.
It seems from reading the comments on this blog that there was ample time to get the necessary permitting in place. I guess you get what you pay (or vote) for.
Post a Comment