Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County building official urges limits on "miscellaneous" 200‑amp power poles to curb unpermitted housing
Summary
Holmes County building official Keith Bennett recommended the county require power‑pole permits to specify intended use and reduce issuance of 200‑amp 'miscellaneous' poles that have been used to power unpermitted dwellings and multiple RV hookups.
Keith Bennett, Holmes County building official, told commissioners that many code and permitting problems trace back to broad, unspecified permits for 200‑amp “miscellaneous power poles.” Bennett said the current permit label allows a person to place a 200‑amp service in a field and later use it to power an unpermitted house or multiple campers.
“We do not have any code enforcement here in Holmes County,” Bennett said, and added that inspectors are seeing sites where one 200‑amp pole is split into multiple 50‑amp services powering multiple campers. He recommended the county adopt a requirement that power‑pole permits include a designated, intended use (for example, 60‑amp service wired for an RV, or 200‑amp wired explicitly for an agricultural barn or for equipment) so that a high‑capacity service is not issued without justification.
Why it matters: Commissioners and county staff said the change could reduce unlawful conversions of outbuildings and RV hookups into permanent dwellings and would give inspectors clearer grounds to enforce the code once a full code‑enforcement program exists. Staff cautioned that any change will increase inspection workload and could add costs for residents who later need to upgrade service.
Discussion and next steps: Commissioners asked Bennett to return with draft permit language and a form describing the intended use so the board could study the proposal before a vote. Bennett said limiting a generic 200‑amp miscellaneous permit to a 60‑amp miscellaneous option, with clear wiring for intended use, would not prevent legitimate agricultural or equipment needs but would reduce abuse.
No ordinance or policy change was adopted at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to prepare proposed forms and bring the topic back for further review.
