The future of Biddeford’s Coastal Area Committee is now in question as coastal residents and city officials alike wonder if it is needed. The committee is made up of residents who live in coastal communities, and has the task of reviewing proposed building projects to make sure that they follow the city’s building codes.
This description also fits the job of the codes enforcement officer, however, and we see no need for such duplication.
When the committee reviews an application for a building permit, whether it be for a small project or a complete overhaul of a property, their recommendation is taken under consideration by the Codes Enforcement Office, but it does not hold any sway over the code enforcement officer’s final decision.
It is surprising, in fact, that anyone would want to participate on such a committee when the codes enforcement officer himself has said that nothing they do alters his decision on a permit. He has to do his own review of the project anyway.
Many of the committee members have concerns about the impact of construction on the surrounding coastal environment, but there are laws in place and setback restrictions, etc to help protect the area. Codes committees are not in place in other areas of town and are not needed along the coast, either.
Developers and homeowners do not need to be subjected to another layer of bureaucracy every time they want to pursue a project. There are already numerous regulations by which they have to abide, and presenting their plans to a committee that barely has even advisory authority is certainly a waste of time. With the committee made up entirely of those who reside in the coastal area, it is certainly biased as well.
It seems clear that the Coastal Area Committee is an outdated remnant of Biddeford Pool’s attempt to secede from the city. Its very creation by the city was mandated by the legislature in 1998 as a response to appease the coastal area after its failed secession attempt.
In the late 1980s, the building inspector was found to have been acting unethically ”“ charging fees for building permits that did not adhere to code ”“ and his indiscretion was one of many reasons cited in Biddeford Pool’s move toward secession at the time.
Creation of the CAC was an attempt to address some of the concerns of Pool residents, but it was never granted the authority necessary to really protect the area ”“ probably because the city and state realized those safeguards were already in place at higher levels.
Now seems the prime time to abolish the CAC and let the codes enforcement officer do his job. No one knows the city’s codes better than the person who is paid to know them and enforce them, and that job should be left to that professional. He or she is overseen by the city manager in the management hierarchy, and if any complaints are filed that can prove the codes officer is not adhering to the law of the land, that person should be terminated from the position.
In the meantime, if the codes officer is doing his or her job efficiently, there is no need for those who are looking to build to be forced to delay their project to allow time to chat with a panel of neighbors about it.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via e-mail at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
