FARMINGTON – Selectmen decided tonight to give a building’s owner a 30-day extension to fix several safety code violations the state’s Fire Marshal’s Office found earlier this fall.
At their Nov. 25, 2008, meeting, selectmen entered into a consent agreement with Joel Batzell, the owner of the building at 103 Bridge Street in West Farmington, that gave him 60 days to submit a work plan and to complete the work to fix several safety code violations.
According to Steve Kaiser, the code enforcement officer, Batzell, who didn’t attend the meeting tonight, has not yet submitted a work plan to correct the safety concerns to the the Fire Marshal’s Office as requested and has not fixed the problems. The two-story wood frame building, located west of Center Bridge, was inspected after a complaint was received by the state that a woman fell down a ladder that accesses a part of the building.
Fire Marshal Ed Bennett reported 11 safety violations that include an insufficient chimney for the oil furnace, exposed electrical wiring and the over-use of extension cords throughout the structure, unsafe stairs, narrow hallways, lack of the correct construction material barrier between the living and storage areas that can delay a fire from spreading and escape egresses, according to the report.
Batzell was required by the state to respond with a plan of action to make all of the repairs and to provide certification by a licensed electrician and a structural engineer that the wiring and building meet the state’s fire code standards, which Kaiser said he hasn’t completed.
However, he told selectmen tonight that Batzell was able to secure funding through Western Maine Community Action to upgrade the heating system and make other safety improvements. More funding through the state’s “Wrap Around” program “is in the works.”
In addition, Batzell has one person living with him now, as opposed to the half dozen or so people who were living there earlier this fall.
“My feeling is that there is progress,” Kaiser said. “His biggest problem is money, but we seem to be getting somewhere now,” he said referring to the funding recently approved.
“I think he’s sincere and if he gets the money he’ll be able to follow through,” Kaiser added. If Batzell, in the end, doesn’t comply with the order to fix the safety concerns, the town may have to take him to court to force the issue.
“I’m just as concerned about property rights,” Selectman Nancy Porter said. “It’s not the safest place, it’s not the prettiest place, but it’s his. If he wants to continue living there that’s fine, but with other people living there that’s different.”
Kaiser noted there “is a legitimate level of concern” for both Batzell and his occupant’s safety.
Selectman Steve Bunker said he was disappointed Batzell did not meet the deadline.
“I think we should be prepared to take legal action,” Bunker said if Batzell fails to meet the new 30-day extension.
Bobbie, you write,
“Fire Marshal Ed Bennett reported 11 safety violations…”
After your article of Nov. 26, Joel Batzell took the trouble to go down that report point by point and showed that it did not in fact list 11 violations. You published his comment, yet now you repeat what Joel refuted. Why?
“that include…”
and again you repeat misleading statements which Joel has already corrected on your website. Why?
To avoid lengthy repetition I’ll just quote the last paragraph of the list Joel posted here in November:
“Down to 3. The rest of these has to do with a hallway too narrow by 2 inches. A ceiling that’s too low by 1 inch and a stairway that’s too narrow by 2 inches. All of these passed our 1991 inspection. Now they are a problem.”
Realistically, I don’t think anyone can make the halls or staircases in his home 2 inches wider, or his ceilings 1 inch higher, in 30 days or 60 days or 90 days. Think about it. Could you do that in your home? In the middle of the winter? I don’t think that could be done even if the owner had lots of money, which everyone knows Joel doesn’t have. Whom are we kidding?
Then you quote Steve Kaiser, who seems to have been hired for his skill at playing good cop/bad cop:
“I think he’s sincere and if he gets the money he’ll be able to follow through,” Kaiser added. If Batzell, in the end, doesn’t comply with the order to fix the safety concerns, the town may have to take him to court to force the issue.”
First Joel is asked to do the impossible. When he doesn’t “comply,” because it is in fact impossible, then “the town may have to take him to court” (the town doesn’t “have to” do any such absurd thing–give the town credit for some common sense), “to force the issue.” What is that supposed to mean? How does a court “force the issue” that a member of our community can’t do what nobody else could do either, if they were the ones on whom the demand was being made? Can a court make Joel’s hallways wider or his ceilings higher? What is Steve Kaiser proposing that “the town” ask the court to do????
What lies behind this nonsense? Surely not a concern for anyone’s safety. What seems to lie behind it is a desire to destroy Joel Batzell and his place of residence/business. Are you just going to sit there and report meaningless bureaucratic evasions while a harmless member of our community is destroyed? And pretend that nothing is desperately wrong in our government, but this one individual just “failed to comply”?
Licia Kuenning
licia@qhpress.org
http:www.qhpress.org
http://www.megalink.net/~klee