11-18-2013, 07:30 AM
I've heard of inspectors "making decisions" about issues that are not explicitly documented in the NEC (which is incorporated by reference into the County Code and thus given the force of law). This seems "unfair" but there's no real recourse due to the obvious "grey area".
If the inspector is going to just make things up on the spot regardless of the applicable Codes, then what is the point of publishing the Code? How can anyone expect to be compliant with "whatever the inspector feels like today"?
If the County wants or needs things that are "above and beyond" the NEC, UBC, UPC, etc, then these need to be written into the law as exceptions so that people can actually follow them. They had no problem doing this with Appendix X of the Building Code ("Traditional" Hawaiian Hale construction, as documented by the nice people at UHH)...
If the inspector is going to just make things up on the spot regardless of the applicable Codes, then what is the point of publishing the Code? How can anyone expect to be compliant with "whatever the inspector feels like today"?
If the County wants or needs things that are "above and beyond" the NEC, UBC, UPC, etc, then these need to be written into the law as exceptions so that people can actually follow them. They had no problem doing this with Appendix X of the Building Code ("Traditional" Hawaiian Hale construction, as documented by the nice people at UHH)...