As state investigations into the building department continue, State Building Inspector Lisa Humble said last week that permits for two buildings at Pondview Estates, 320 Middletown Ave., were not valid when work began on them in 2009.

The North Haven Citizen reported Feb. 12 that permits for structures four and five at Pondview Estates, a 16-unit condominium development, may have expired between their June 26, 2006 issuance and when work officially began on the buildings on April 9, 1009. Section 105.5 of the 2005 Connecticut State Building Code, in effect on June 26, 2006, states “every [building] permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance.” The section allows for extension of permits by the building official if the contractors submit written, acceptable requests for extensions. No such extensions exist in Pondview Estates’ file, and over 1,000 days elapsed between June 2006 and April 2009, well over the 180-day limit.

In an email to Humble dated April 7, 2010, North Haven building official Dave Maiden argues that because site-development work has continued since 2006, the permits for the two Pondview Estates buildings in question were still valid.

“The utilities, roads, a water crossing, retaining walls, drainage and the first buildings were started in 2006/2007, and work has continued until this date,” Maiden wrote to Humble. “One unit remains to be final inspected for a certificate of occupancy (inspection for CO is to be requested within days). The foundation for this last unit was not inspected until 2009; however, the utilities, roadwork, and draining system work for this unit along with the rest of the development has been ongoing since 2006.”

“Since the development has been ongoing without any known delays,” Maiden continued, “the permits for all 16 units/8 buildings should remain valid until the last unit is issued a certificate of occupancy. Question: Do you concur with this finding?”

In an April 9 fax sent to Maiden and Public Works Director Lynn Sadosky, Humble wrote, “The continued site developing work occurring is not work commencing on each of the requested building permits for the residential duplex structure… Therefore the 2006 building permits for the remaining two buildings are not valid in 2010 in their requested building permit work has not commenced and if no extension of time has been granted.”

Humble also confirmed Section 105.5 of the 2005 Connecticut State Building Code.

“The code permits the permit applicant to request a written extension of time,” Humble writes in the fax. “If no such record of extension of time has been filed, then a building permit becomes invalid.”

When reached April 12 about Pondview Estates, Maiden responded, “We’re checking into it.”

Humble’s fax included Sadosky because the Public Works Director had faxed the State Building Inspector on April 8 with concerns regarding Pondview Estates.

“According to inspection records maintained on file with our Building Department, the footings and foundation evacuations for Building 4 and Building 5 started on April 9, 2009,” Sadosky writes to Humble. “This is greater than one-thousand days after the original date of the Building Permit issuance date of June 26, 2006.”

“The Building Department has no records on file written of an extension of the building permits,” Sadosky continues. “Please provide clarification as to whether the Building Permits for Buildings 4 and 5… have expired and is the Town in its right to charge the current developer for new Building Permits at its current rate? I ask because the current developer is asking for a certificate of Occupancy on Building 5, unit 10 within a matter of days.”

Humble again pointed to Section 105.5 of the 2005 Connecticut State Building Code. “The 2006 building permits for the remaining two buildings are not valid in 2010 if their requested building permit work has not commenced and if no extension of time has been granted,” Humble writes.

When reached April 12, Sadosky responded, “We are aware of the State Building Official Lisa Humble’s response, and we’re currently researching her response.”

“We have no specific direction yet but we’re researching internally,” Sadosky added.

If structures four and five permits were void, the property’s owner should have been charged two new building permit fees when construction finally began in 2009.

According to the current construction value and permit fee schedule obtained from the North Haven Building Department, building permit fees are $18 for the first $1,000 of a project’s construction value, and $12 for every additional $1,000 of construction value.

The construction value and permit fee schedule lists the construction value of first floor living space at $110 per square foot. According to the North Haven assessor’s online database data.visionappraisal.com/NorthHavenCT, structures four and five have two units each, and each unit has 1,480 square feet of first floor living space. Multiplying 1,480 by $100 gives a first floor living space construction value of $162,800 per unit.

The construction value and permit fee schedule lists the construction value of garage space at $45 per square feet. According to the North Haven assessor’s online database, the four units inside structures four and five each have 576 square feet of garage space. Multiplying 576 by $45 gives a garage space construction value of $25,920 per unit.

The construction value and permit fee schedule lists the construction value of decks at a $50 flat fee per deck. According to the North Haven assessor’s online database, structures four and five have four total decks for $200 total in construction value.

Adding $162,800 and $25,920 equals $188,720, which the building department rounds up to $189,000. Charging $18 for the first $1,000 leaves $188,000 – charging $12 for every remaining $1,000 of construction value, and adding $18, equals $2,274 per unit, times four units, equals $9,096, plus $200 for the four decks, totals $9,296 that was not charged for building fees when construction was begun on structures four and five with voided permits.

“We have now intensified our focus here in town to determine whether in fact we did lose fees in building permits,” First Selectman Michael Freda said of Pondview Estates April 12 when contacted. “If it is determined that we did lose fees, then there will be some very quick and decisive actions taken on my part.”

“A lot of people, including the town attorney, are looking into this,” Freda added. “I am waiting for the results.”

The other Pondview Estates buildings’ constructions were all begun within the 180-day time limit.