New Bedford city councilor wants closer look at 2020 complaints against Building Dept.

NEW BEDFORD - A city councilor wants to take a closer look at a state report into complaints against the New Bedford Building Dept. that was issued in September 2022.

Councilor Ryan Pereira's request Thursday that the council's Committee on Internal Affairs review the report was approved by the board.

The report was prepared by the state Office of Public Safety and Inspections.

The OPSI investigated six complaints lodged in 2020, mostly dealing with delays in department responses.

The report concluded, "Complaint allegations as herein enumerated appear to be valid, at least to some extent, and require further attention by department code officials. However, difficulties do not appear to be systemic …"

Building Dept. responded 'swiftly, appropriately' in follow-up

The report made several recommendations, including that the department assess how it responds to inspection requests, and to evaluate and address complaints in a timely manner.

In a follow-up to the report, OPSI investigators stated, "Additionally, in the intervening period since this review began and present, the Office of Public Safety and Inspections has received several requests for assistance with varied issues concerning the administration of code requirements in New Bedford. In each instance, New Bedford building code enforcement personnel acted swiftly and appropriately to resolve the matter."

The review and complaint investigation was started June 25, 2021, and included a review of records and staff interviews.

It included a follow-up visit to the Building Dept. on March 2, 2022.

The six complaints provided to state inspectors

The complainants' names are redacted in the report.

The first complaint was lodged June 9, 2020. The complainant said they had called the department repeatedly over several weeks to arrange an inspection.

The report found the department didn't follow building code provisions, and should have responded within two days of notification.

The second complaint was lodged Aug. 3, 2020, and stated the department had not reviewed a blueprint presented in a timely fashion.

The report found the department didn't follow building code provisions, which require a response within 30 days of a permit application's having been filed.

The third complaint was lodged on Aug. 4, 2020, and involved an allegation that the city inspector had made the complainant do extra work on a home rehabilitation that the complainant didn't think was necessary. The complainant also said there was a delay in issuing a building permit on a second job.

The report found the department didn't follow code provisions precisely but that the complainant "should have been aware of issues raised during inspections and able to accommodate solutions as a matter of public safety and code conformance."

The fourth complaint was lodged Nov. 12, 2020, and involved department requests for renovations the complainant felt weren't necessary, and the department rejecting proposed designs without good reason.

The report found the department didn't follow code provisions requiring sufficient clarity for construction documents.

It's added in the report, "Although ultimately it is incumbent upon a permit applicant to provide plans and specifications in keeping with this provision, equally important is an inspector's obligation to identify deficiencies and/or reject documents that do not provide sufficient clarity and detail."

The fifth complaint was lodged on Nov. 2, 2020 when the complainant was told they had to install hardwire smoke/carbon monoxide detectors.

The report found the department didn't follow code provisions. Staff should have made "a distinction between requirements of the code and allowances of the law and make it clear to an applicant when each applies."

The sixth complaint was lodged on Oct. 19, 2020, and involved delays in getting a response on permit requests.

The report found the department didn't follow code provisions because it failed to respond within the 30 days required.

The state inspectors followed up with the six complainants to see whether the department had rectified the issues.

Only two responded, but didn't report any further problems.