April 6, 2011

Dear Cyndy,

Thank you for your letter. I hadn't overlooked your question about a wiring inspection, but only postponed an answer which I find important and complex. Knowing me, you'll not be surprised that I try hard not to oversimplify.

The Town is eager, perhaps overly so, to protect me from myself. Let me count the ways: At the beginning, now six years ago, a soil inspection, then an excavation inspection, then a foundation inspection, next a well-water inspection (testing), an electrical service inspection (before power might be supplied), all these I have passed. The rough wiring inspection in November 2008, for reasons listed below, I failed.  The outcome of the rough plumbing inspection on March 14th is presently in limbo, and will be adjudicated by the Court whose notations:

"Rescript (P#19) 2/3/11 - At hearing; the parties agreed to work with each other to issue a plumbing permit to plaintiff. 3/3/11 - At hearing; the defendant advised that plaintiff hired a plumber. The plumber pd fees and has an application for permit. The parties have 45 days to report to the court that they have resolved the plumbing permit requirements after inspection or if they cannot come to agreement, the court will decide if a further hearing is required to resolve their differences, or in the alternative, enter a judgment on the underlying record in accordance w/the Appeal Court decision.  (Merita A. Hopkins, Justice). Notices mailed 3/4/2011"

suggest that she can't distinguish between a plumbing permit and a plumbing inspection or that she can't express herself, or both.

Once the rough plumbing and the rough wiring inspections are behind, there is the framing inspection. This has also been performed and satisfactorily absolved. The framing inspection however, was not certified because the rough plumbing and rough wiring inspections had not yet been absolved.  After the framing inspection there is required an insulation inspection, then a final wiring inspection, a final plumbing inspection, a final building inspection and a final Historic District Commission inspection which might hypothetically require the house to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.  Obviously it takes more than the nine lives of a cat to build a house on Nantucket.

The Cease, Desist and Abate Illegal Plumbing order of December 2, 2008 arose from the circumstance that I hadn't been able to locate a plumber to "pull" a permit, and nonetheless proceeded with the plumbing.  With respect to the wiring, the permit problem was solved by a patient of Klemens' Mr. Rex Rowley who was eager to help. He obtained a permit with the proviso that he and I would do the wiring "together". - no questions to be asked about what was meant by "together" - a common law arrangement which the writing inspector, Mr. Larrabee, seemed to tolerate.  

On Nov. 13, 2008, Rex and I went to Nantucket for the rough wiring inspection. "Our" work was a failure. Sitting next to me in the front seat while we drove back from Hyannis, Rex jotted down the following specifications:

1  - outside door lights
2  - Ground Bonds / Box to device
3  - 3 way outside stairs
4  - GFI / Bathrooms - outside + Kitch + Basement
5  - lobby, Smoke Box / deep?
6  - set back Boxes / mud rings?
7  - outside Floods?
8  - outdoor plugs + porch plug
9  - shower lights
10 - Bedroom #1 / BiggerBox + Room below it.
11 - only 1 wire to handy Boxes.
12 - exhaust Bathrooms.
13 - #12 wire in Kitchen + Dining

The remediation of these defects was then delayed because I interpreted the Cease and Desist order as probiting also the use of the shower, laundry tub and toilet which I had installed, such use being incompatible with the order to "abate." Subsequent then to the issuance of the plumbing permit to Mr. Gordon, the responsibility for the plumbing became his, and so long as he doesn't probibit me from going to the toilet, I shall use it with abandon.  As a matter of fact, the $2001.00 that I've paid Mr Gordon I interpret as probably the most exorbitant fee for the use of the flush toilet since it was invented.  At long last, Margaret and I may again stay in the house. On the recent visit, I corrected virtually all the listed wiring errors and omissions. 

From the beginning I had urged Rex to make separate preliminary inspections of the wiring prior to presenting it to Mr. Larrabee, but Rex had consistently refused, saying that he was confident of the quality of my work.  However, after his embarrassment at the November 13, 2008 inspection, Rex's attitude changed. He started muttering about the homeowner's work lacking professionalism, and has agreed to make a trip anticipatory to the repeat inspection to make certain he will be presenting a defensible installation.  I very much approve.

Mr. Larrabee, from what I've seen of him, seems to me a conscientious unimaginative pedestrian bureaucrat, who has memorized relevant sections of the electrical code without thinking about them. While some of his objections were valid and address matters that "we" had overlooked, others reflect either his misapprehensions or parochial Nantucket extravagances such as illuminated shower stalls, which have no basis in the Code.  But why not? Where compliamce is simple, it's more efficient to comply than to argue. Whether or not Mr. Ciarmataro's vindictiveness will have infected also Mr. Larrabee's judgment, I can't anticipate. I have, and I will, make Rex aware of the possibility.  But since in his full-time job, Rex is an employee of the Commonwealth, he feels secure in dealing with its (other) bureaucrats. We shall see.

My best to both you and Ned.

Jochen

* * * * * *