Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Third Party Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shandaken board tables resolutions on third‑party building reviews after fee dispute
Summary
The Town of Shandaken board delayed two resolutions to appoint outside architectural and engineering reviewers after members debated whether permit fees should automatically cover third‑party reviews; the board voted to table the measures until Aug. 3 for revisions.
The Town of Shandaken Town Board voted to table two resolutions that would have appointed outside consultants for third‑party review of building permits, saying the draft language conflicts with the town's current fee structure and needs clarification.
Chair (presiding officer) moved that the board “table the resolutions as written and bring this to the August 3 meeting,” and members agreed to postpone further action while staff and board members reconcile billing language and thresholds for when outside review would be required. The resolutions under consideration — identified in discussion as items 102 and 103 — would have named an architectural consultant, Cassius Lee, and an engineering firm, Tachi Engineering.
Board member Nissel, who explained the fee calculations to the board, said current practice builds third‑party review costs into permit application fees. “It's built in to our fee structure,” she said, describing the town's approach as an embedded cost rather than an additional charge to applicants under present law. Nissel also said architect reviews would be a flat $150 while engineering reviews would be billed hourly by the person performing the work.
Members raised two policy options: keep higher, value‑based permit fees that can cover outside review for any project, or lower baseline fees for simple permits and charge extra only when a third‑party review is required. Several board members stressed the need for clear criteria to require third‑party review so applicants are not surprised by additional charges.
The board also discussed a concrete example of a steep‑slope house in an erosion zone where a third‑party structural review likely would have identified problems before construction began. Nissel said such reviews are intended to protect the town and its residents from unsafe construction.
Because the draft resolutions' text and the town's fee structure conflict, the board unanimously agreed to postpone the vote and return with edited language and options on billing at the Aug. 3 meeting.
