Posts: 966
Threads: 61
Joined: Jan 2006
i keep hearing references about people who got their building permits finaled and had requirements that had nothing to do with their building. such as having to buy a refrigerator. having to plant a hedge, having to tear down a bathhouse, having to move a shipping container. etc. etc. my question to anyone who has gone through this: do they walk around your acreage looking for stuff, or do they just inspect your house? are some inspectors more reasonable or are they out looking to screw folks? my last inspection was in the early 1980s and was a piece of cake so i am a bit concerned here. it seems so silly with all the unpermited structures in puna why they would play gestapo with people who are getting permits... any firsthand experience out there??
Posts: 2,314
Threads: 59
Joined: Jun 2003
I have had several homes built here but I have never ever heard of or experienced the things you mentioned. The only thing I know of if you don't have a stove at the time of the inspection than you have to have a firewall(?) behind where the stove would be.
Aloha,
John S. Rabi, GM,PB,ABR,CRB,CM,FHS
808.327.3185
johnrabi@johnrabi.com
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
"The Next Level of Service!"
Posts: 299
Threads: 49
Joined: Jun 2003
Move a shipping container? Yes, unless it is on wheels.
Tear down a bathhouse? Yes, if it is an unpermitted structure.
But only if it is obvious. They will not wander around your property looking for things. And what you do after you get the final...
Jerry
Posts: 966
Threads: 61
Joined: Jan 2006
thanks john and jerry. jerry that was specifically what i wanted to know. do they pretty much stay at the house site or if they go treking around. i did build a chicken coop which is obviously a chicken coop but it is taller than 6 feet. but you would have to go on a walk about to see it.....my chickens wouldnt be happy if the roof had to come off
]
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
I would imagine that such stories are based on incomplete information, such as, a shipping container that had been modified and served as an inhabitable shelter was ordered removed before the final was issued. A couple common non-modified shipping containers in good condition sitting on private property cannot be flagged by the building department. If one is or an inspector orders that a refrigerator be purchased and put in place before a final is issued you have a rogue inspector who needs a little sit down pow-wow with his supervisor.
I’ve heard of such rogue inspectors on Island and know of one who tried to claim a concrete pad had been brushed finished improperly by virtue of the direction of the brush to the slope of the pad. He was refusing to issue the final until he was called to the mat when his supervisor was notified. He damn near lost his job for that little game.
Such petty ignorance/prejudices are still practiced by a small handful of county employees so be advised of it, but also remember that they are still fully accountable to the director and supervisors of their department.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 2,014
Threads: 46
Joined: Jun 2003
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
A couple common non-modified shipping containers in good condition sitting on private property cannot be flagged by the building department....
Actually, a friend of ours had their final inspection. In front of the house sat two 20ft containers, one with their yet to be moved in household goods, the 2nd nearly empty. Inspector told them the containers could either be 1 - on transport wheels, 2- permitted and properly installed on foundation, or 3 - be gone before they could pass final.
The next week, this same inspection came for my framing inspection. He noticed I had a 20ft container, asked if it was staying (obviously as it was a part of my solar electric setup) told me it had to be permitted or removed. Obviously, I went this the cost and hassle for additional permit and that permit was finalled before my house was.
David
Ninole Resident
Ninole Resident
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Keep in mind I'm not disputing your claim and I already know there's a stinker inspector in Ninole.
My Father in-law lives right up there in Ninole too and finished up his third house a couple years ago. His shipping container remained on premises the entire duration through final while grounded, never permitted and never questioned. He's also lived on Island for 30 plus years. I’ve also had containers on premises in Kona on Jobs while finals were issued, no problems with them at all.
Technically and legally speaking; unless a container is being used for something other than its intended purpose. The container does not fall under the building department’s jurisdiction regardless of what they may claim or an arbitrary outlined code may state. As tempting as it may be to them to question, as well as the county to pretend they may have authority over a private container on private property, being on wheels is not the only thing that separates a container from a building. It’s also separately defined by U.S. Law and the county does not have the legal authority to redefine U.S. law or undermine its U.S. designation.
By U.S. law a shipping container is a licensed and recognized product already defined that even without wheels is a transport enclosure and can be owned and possessed by a private party, it's nothing more than a giant transport storage box, it is not recognized by U.S. law as a structural building. Neither the state nor the county by law may redefine its designation unless modified or used beyond it’s intended use. The building department cannot order a permit be obtained and foundation be fabricated for a shipping container to be placed on ones premises, not technically nor legally, not unless that container is used for something other than its intended use and duration of grounding would not redefine a shipping containers legally recognized designation.
If we have a plastic transport storage box sitting in our driveway; should the building department be allowed to say it has to be put on wheels or a permit needs to be issued and it needs to be placed on its own foundation? Heck no and no because it is personal private property and something that is not legally designated as a building/structure (not in the legal sense of a building structure). The building department has limits to it's powers and when those limitations are crossed they need to be brought back to Earth via the courts.
What’s being encountered is underhanded selectively evoked policy. It’s an illegal practice regardless of where engaged in and such policy cannot stand to the scrutiny of the courts. There are several key points that show without doubt there is selective application of the ordered resolutions evoking coercion. A building department will not enter a shipping yard and refuse to issue a final on a new office building in that yard if all the containers on premises are not permitted before the final is issued. This is not a practice or enforced policy on professional commercial/residential construction sites to obtain finals. I could go on with the comparatives but will stop right there. The building inspector is not endowed with special powers of clairvoyance and cannot determine if a private shipping container will stay permanently and be modified or be sold and removed from the premises shortly after a final would have been potentially issued. Therfore, the building department/inspector is assuming the container will be modified and serve a purpose beyond it's true designation, that is an assumption without merit and violates an already tendered right to use and own a shipping container. I hope they flag my container and refuse to issue a final because of its presence on premises. I intend to sell mine shortly after construction is complete… however, I will not remove it before hand and I will not allow the building department to hold up my final until the container is gone. I will be more than happy to take them to court and quash the department’s ill-conceived policy practice and have the Judge order them to issue the final. It's exactly that sort of nonsense that people need to stand up against. If we don't, the intrusions only become greater.
Such coercion practices by a county are an insult to its citizens and the county representative/s who implemented such a policy should be damned ashamed of themselves.
What sort of a people cowers to such extortions and allow such invading nuisances into their lives; only a people who have submitted themselves to thieves and liars.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 966
Threads: 61
Joined: Jan 2006
wow good job Wao. i hope you keep us posted about the outcome of this. it is the most commom one i heard. the worse one was a lady that had one full of household goods, he said the containers had to go, so she moved the furniture in the house, sold the containers, then he wouldnt issue because her furniture was in the house before her final. i think i read that one on the county site about the survey.
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
I was going to mention in my above post that it is not permissible to move into the home until the occupancy permit is granted through the final. This is precisely why a shipping container grounded on site is nothing abnormal across this nation nor is does it constitute a reasonable count to withhold a final/occupancy on a home. They have created an ignorant catch 22 with the policy further highlighting why such a baseless demand is in-fact illegal and abridging one's basic right to move from one home to another and do what is necessary and within ones budget to perform such a task.
Seriously… it’s not beyond me to set a trap to purposely challenge a policy and or building code having direct proof of the offense on behalf of building officials actions. I’ve been part of several such traps in the past and have no problems doing it again; we’ve set up rouge inspectors on job sites more than once throughout the years and turned over a couple codes in court.
I earnestly despise such errant disjointed abuse of post and powers.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 2,014
Threads: 46
Joined: Jun 2003
Great discussion Wao nahele kane. In the2 cases I mentioned, the one friend had already sold their containers so this just provided impetus to get them unloaded and picked up. They moved in before final. In my own case, I'd guess the 3/4 plywood fastened with 2x4's bolted to the outside of the container and holding my inverters etc probably gave hint that my purpose wasn't shipping. I'd guess your rationale may have been why my draftsperson/permit getter did not include the container on the original drawings, as when I asked he said the county didn't care. This eventually did work to my benefit however. When the electrician filed for my solar permit it was turned down because the container was not considered a permanent structure. Kinda hard to have it both ways though when he returned the application with the permit # issued specifically for the container.
David
As for moving in, gosh I can't think of any of my friends who didn't move in before final.
David
Ninole Resident
Ninole Resident
