violation such a time frame is patently unreasonable. There needs to be an
Administrative Appeal mechanism that allows a property owner to provide
evidence to justify expansion of the time frame to comply on a case-by-case basis.
One size does not fit all here. What if the job is complex? A contractor is
unavailable? A property owner is out of state/communication? A natural disaster
occurred? There are insurance or tenant issues? The way the proposed ordinance
is written does not comport with a fair analysis of what reality is likely to be here.
The way the table of fines is currently proposed in the ordinance will result in
unfair penalties that are in direct violation of RSA 31-39-III in that the totality of
a fine for an ‘offense’ cannot exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00.) The
way the ordinance is currently drafted it defines offense as ‘each day’ being anew
offense as opposed to each code violation ‘occurrence or existence.’ Offense
should be redefined to an event occurrence tied to the merits of the violation and
not the calendar days of which the one-time violation continues to exist.
Moreover, the proposed ordinance should contain ‘warning’ provisions and it
does not. The fines are also excessive in ‘amount’ for limited resource property
owners that are already paying substantial real estate taxes to the City.
Moreover, the proposed ordinance references the ability to impose ‘reduced’ fines
but there is no further designation or uniformity to that in application.
The proposed ordinance as written lends itself to selective enforcement and abuse
by third parties. The ordinance needs to be revised to set forth whether
inspections are ‘complaint’ based or whether there will be a ‘set schedule’ of
inspections for all property owners—residential and commercial. There should
also be a ‘reasonable advance notice’ provision as it relates to these inspections.
As written, this ordinance would allow the relevant inspector discretion to engage
in surprise inspections and selective enforcement as to who they may choose to
fine and who they don’t. The wording of the ordinance is framed with the word
‘may’ as it relates to a fine. There is too much discretion afforded to a potential
inspector to impose or not impose fines in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Moreover, such an ordinance will arm residential and commercial tenants with
retaliatory measures to abuse the process by intentionally damaging property,
notifying a relevant inspector resulting in an administrative fine being imposed
upon a property owner without due process and not as the true responsible party.
The ‘description section’ of the proposed ordinance is overly vague. Although
the offense categories are tied to other City or State statutes and ordinances there
is the opportunity for an inspector to impose multiple fines for the same violation
as the description of the violation can fall into multiple categories. For example,
an alleged violation of ‘exterior standards’ may also qualify for a ‘building
violation.’ There needs to be a ‘definitions’ section to the proposed ordinance to
avoid vagueness and arbitrariness in its application.
