5/14/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-electrical contractor responsible for these installations to make necessary corrections. Mr. Miller refused to acknowledge any responsibility because he assumed the electrical installations were inspected and approved by the Building.Department. The Home Owners Association did not agree with Mr. Miller's position and requested a resolution to the problem. A private electrical contractor was hired to inspect seven (7) units and according to his findings, the units were in violation of the' National Electrical Code. A copy of this report was filed with the Building Department along with a request for us to inspect. The Building Department had previously inspected these units but the electrical inspector who prepared the report was no longer employed .by the County so it was necessary to re --inspect. The current electrical inspector reported that -all seven units were unacceptable and, in his opinion, below minimum standards. Fur- thermore,, he concurred with the report filed by the private con- tractor and recommended immediate action to correct deficiencies. In an effort to resolve this matter, it was decided to seek remedy through the Code Enforcement Board. The complex owners and unit owners were notified of the code violations and subse- quently ordered to appear before the Board. Since the violations were similar in all cases, the Board elected to hear testimony and try only one case at the first hearing. The final order of the Board required both the property owner and unit owner to cor- rect the violations or face a fine. Following the action of the Board, the seven unit owners apparently hired an electrical con- tractor to correct the. deficiencies. The work has been completed and inspected to verify code compliance on six of the units. The seventh unit repairs have been delayed due to an unrelated conflict with the power company. I will attempt to explain after many hours of research, during the development of this we are addressing today. to the best of my knowledge and the inspection procedures followed project that led to the problems It became apparent in 1975 that mobile homes were becoming a booming industry and there was a concern as to how safe these units would be during- a hurricane. Indian River County adopted a mobile home tie -down ordinance on ,July 21,_ 1975 to provide ade- quate protection for -mobile homes. Prior to the adoption of this ordinance, the Building Department authority was limited to the pedestal supplying the electrical service to the unit. Procedures were developed to make sure that every unit in Indian River County was properly anchored. The first inspection was to check the tiedown and, if the pedestal was installed, a sticker was placed on the unit. In some cases, the electrical service was energized at that time. After the electric was connected, the Department lost some control over other work done on the site; such as, air conditioning equipment and utility room wiring. The records will clearly indicate that in some cases, no permits were issued for air conditioning equipment and electrical wiring was added to utility rooms that were supposed to be used for storage only. The records also indicate these are the areas where most of the violations occurred. Apparently a lot of this work was done with- out securing proper permits and therefore was not subject to in- spection. It is important to understand mobile homes are entirely dif- ferent than conventional on-site construction. The mobile home unit is manufactured as a closed system, delivered to the site as an approved structure and ready for occupancy. We have no authority over the construction of this structure nor do we apply any part of the Standard Building Code. This is the reason we have different procedures for this type development. It is very unlikely these problems would occur on conventional -type construc- tion because the department inspects everything on-site as it is being built. The electrical service is not energized until all work is completed and ready for occupancy. The approval for energizing is our best source of quality control. 41 AY 14 1986 MBoa 64 PnF 44.E