Local Initiatives 



Generally, with regard to both state and local regulations, effectiveness 

 is heavily dependent upon a local building inspector's interpretation of 

 requirements, his/her commitment to ensuring that requirements are met, 

 and the resources and time which are available to undertake inspections. 



Most local building inspectors have taken their positions based on familiarity with the 

 building trade, and have limited qualifications where review of natural resource or 

 environmental permitting factors are concerned. Further, many of these officials operate 

 part-time or have other inspection responsibilities (such as plumbing or electrical 

 inspection). 



Building inspectors may also exercise considerable influence with regard to the scope 

 and character of local initiatives. Although building inspectors are enforcement officials, 

 and not policy makers, they nevertheless act in an advisory capacity to the zoning and 

 planning boards, and may in some cases function as zoning officers. Boards may rely 

 largely on a building inspector's opinion regarding constraints to implementation in 

 determining an ordinance's appropriate scope, and in setting performance standards. 



Panly because of the political pressures exerted on town councils to undertake resource 

 protection initiatives with limited enforcement capability, many town ordinances 

 describe the purpose of the law and the extent of its jurisdiction, but fail to 

 outline clear performance standards. A great deal of discretionary authority 

 thus passes to local officials. 



The local special permit and variance granting processes are particularly 

 vulnerable to the lack of standards and guidelines. Most town by-laws provide 

 an appeal process through which many land use activities may be reviewed by boards of 

 appeals or other designated authorities. Very often, the special permit granting authority or 

 appeal board is an appointed board which does not formally adopt standards or policy 

 guidelines for the issuance of peraiits. The lack of accepted standards not only inhibits 

 accountability, but may allow for unjustified inconsistency in review procedure or for 

 exercise of favoritism. 



As discussed in further detail in related chapters, local provisions rarely 

 go beyond the authority provided in practice by state regulatory language. 



Di certain cases, local governments have attempted to regulate land use under police power 

 authority, but with mixed results. Successful legal challenges of more aggressive local 

 controls have served to exert a "chilling" effect on other local jurisdictions, particularly 

 where findings of regulatory "takings" have occim-ed. Especially where environmental 

 controls are concerned, municipalities see themselves as organs of the state whose primary 

 function is to increase the potential efficiency of state initiatives. 



Local governments actively concerned with resource protection look to 

 CRMC, in particular, with its broad ecosystem protection mandate, to 

 provide a strict regulatory interpretation which supports aggressive local 

 action. Although the SAM plans have served as a basis for local regulatory change in 

 certain areas, the plans have only been put in place in certain areas of the state. Further, 

 CRMC views the SAM plans as primarily facilitating the use of local controls rather than as 

 imposing increased state authority. 



209 



