COURT HOUSE – Two companion bills in the two houses of the New Jersey Legislature would establish a program under which an applicant for a construction permit may pay a premium fee to have inspections under the permit performed on an expedited basis, which is within two days of the time the inspection is requested.
The bill leaves open two paths for a municipality.
A governing body can elect to participate in the program by requiring the local construction office to perform expedited inspections, something for which most construction offices are not staffed, given the reliance many have on part-time subcode inspectors. The bills, in their current form, make no provision for weekends or holidays when calculating the two-day window.
The other option is for the municipality to choose not to participate. In that case, the property owner or developer could select a third-party agency to conduct the inspections.
The municipality would have the responsibility of paying the third-party entity. The municipality would also retain the burden of supplying the third-party inspector with the necessary documents and materials.
Regardless of the path chosen by the municipality, the local construction official remains responsible for oversight of the inspections and retains the responsibility for issuing the certificate of occupancy.
Edward Dean, the construction official in Avalon, pointed to the fact that the borough has some unique challenges in construction inspections.
“These houses are built differently,” he said. He noted, “Avalon has carefully interviewed and chosen its inspectors to ensure they have experience with protected construction.”
As one reads the bills, the burdens keep returning to the local construction office. For example, a case where a third-party agency failed to complete the inspection in the two-day window falls on the municipality, which has 24 hours to complete the inspection the third-party agency failed to perform.
In another example, if a municipality, for whatever reason, fails to conduct an inspection in the three-day period required by the Uniform Construction Code (UCC), the holder of the construction permit may choose a third-party agency to do the inspection without paying the premium.
The process can run into the issue of multiple copies of plans. The UCC only requires that the municipality archive one copy of the plans.
The New Jersey Building Officials Association (NJBOA) came out in opposition to the bills. The basic argument is that the proposed law is burdensome, potentially discriminatory, and, in the final analysis, unnecessary.
As an NJBOA letter to legislators puts it, “The UCC, which governs these aspects, already contains requirements to meet the intent of this bill. It contains language that requires municipalities to properly staff their offices to meet required inspection deadlines.”
The letter notes those deadlines, embedded in UCC, require inspections within three business days.
The letter observes that “if the existing statutes were properly administered, there would be no need for the bill proposed.”
One of the more obvious problems many construction officials point to in the proposed legislation is the fact that the municipalities must retain oversight of the inspection process on every project. The draft legislation does not explain how this is to be done.
How does the municipality maintain responsibility for the actions of an independent agency over which it has no control? As the NJBOA puts it, “If something goes awry, who is responsible?”
As Dean notes, “The Department of Community Affairs has within its purview the ability to enforce that provision of the code when municipalities fail to meet the timeframe.”
Simply put, the uniform message from construction officials is to enforce what is on the books.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.
