CSA Z240

[Plumb-bob]

We are writing a new Manufactured Home Park Bylaw, and I am wondering how other jurisdictions regulate used manufactured homes being re-located into a municipality. I see some towns require a P.Eng to certify electrical and plumbing.

What are you folks doing?

 

[tmurray]

A lot ask for the CSA number.
Electrical and plumbing connections require the involvement of a licensed plumber and electrician who need to pull permits and would be inspected by an electrical inspector and plumbing inspector.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We are writing a new Manufactured Home Park Bylaw, and I am wondering how other jurisdictions regulate used manufactured homes being re-located into a municipality. I see some towns require a P.Eng to certify electrical and plumbing.

What are you folks doing?

Are you asking about certifying the connections between the mobile home systems and the site utilities, or are you asking about having PEs certify that the electrical and plumbing systems in the mobile home are up to some standard? If the latter, the PE would have to travel to the maufacturing plant and see each mobile home while it is being constructed. That seems impractical.

 

[Plumb-bob]

I am wondering how to deal with older units being moved from another location into my municipality. I understand that when constructed, these units are certified in the factory. However, when a 30 year old trailer is pulled into town I am no longer confident that this factory certification is valid or that the unit is safe.

The electrical and plumbing connections will be inspected on site.

 

[tmurray]

There is kind of an issue with how some provinces adopt the MH series. While the unit is certified at the factory and the certification does not expire, it does not create a clear path for modifications. It is almost guaranteed that a 30 year old home would have underwent some form of modification. It is questionable to use the code as the basis for these modifications since the building is not originally constructed to code.

For provinces that use the national code system, the buildings are constructed to code (some tweaks for transportation and anchorage), but otherwise it is a lot easier to rely on the code for modifications.

 

[Plumb-bob]

Im thinking we will:

1. Accept any unit that has a CSA certification, with the condition that any modifications require P.Eng sign-off.
2. Accept any unit that does not have CSA certification only after P.Eng sign-off.

 

[tmurray]

Im thinking we will:

1. Accept any unit that has a CSA certification, with the condition that any modifications require P.Eng sign-off.
2. Accept any unit that does not have CSA certification only after P.Eng sign-off.

My understanding is that the P.Eng sign off is a relatively common requirement.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

PA only has requirements for new mobile homes. Nothing at all for used but may need a service inspection for the utility and a permit will be required for a stairway or deck.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Is the intent to use the MH classification versus the CSA A277 designation in the zoning bylaw to prevent old-style "trailers" from being moved into the community?

 

[Plumb-bob]

Is the intent to use the MH classification versus the CSA A277 designation in the zoning bylaw to prevent old-style "trailers" from being moved into the community?

My understanding is the A277 certification is for the factory that constructs the manufactured homes, and from this factory are produced units with the Z240 designation.

We do not want to restrict the age or type of units coming in per se, we just want assurances that they will be relatively safe.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

My understanding is the A277 certification is for the factory that constructs the manufactured homes, and from this factory are produced units with the Z240 designation.

We do not want to restrict the age or type of units coming in per se, we just want assurances that they will be relatively safe.

OK, just wondering. We used the A277 and Z240 MH (not Z240) designations as a tool for restricting single-unit old-style "trailers" from a municipality's zones (except for a trailer park) while allowing modern minihomes in residential areas (with permanent foundation requirements in the zoning by-law IIRC.)

So the handy-dandy A 1.1.1.1 says we can treat relocated buildings as existing, as long as there's some rational approach to figuring out if an existing building meets wind/snow and seismic loads in its new location.

We have a bit of a similar situation here with existing modular units from out-of-area as our jurisdiction includes some areas where the Sa (0.2) exceeds 0.7g. We haven't had to deal with units from outside that area being moved in (yet), but .... but.

We've been informed by one manufacturer of single-unit modular homes that they use longer nails in exterior sheathing in any event as part of the deformation resistance in Z240 10.1, which is handy. As for others, the difference between a seismic-suitable nail (2.5") and a standard sheathing nail (2.375") isn't much, it wouldn't be *much* of a risk, but....but.

Might I suggest a policy that evaluates each pre-constructed building on a case-by-case basis, reserving the path to an engineering oversight for structures that are of a certain vintage and/or come from climactic zones that were less onerous (ie: lesser wind/snow loads)? You might also be able to subsume an approach to moving existing non-conforming buildings (like, say, that 1920-era timber-frame church being moved into the community to be renovated into ... whatever.

 

[tmurray]

OK, just wondering. We used the A277 and Z240 MH (not Z240) designations as a tool for restricting single-unit old-style "trailers" from a municipality's zones (except for a trailer park) while allowing modern minihomes in residential areas (with permanent foundation requirements in the zoning by-law IIRC.)

So the handy-dandy A 1.1.1.1 says we can treat relocated buildings as existing, as long as there's some rational approach to figuring out if an existing building meets wind/snow and seismic loads in its new location.

We have a bit of a similar situation here with existing modular units from out-of-area as our jurisdiction includes some areas where the Sa (0.2) exceeds 0.7g. We haven't had to deal with units from outside that area being moved in (yet), but .... but.

We've been informed by one manufacturer of single-unit modular homes that they use longer nails in exterior sheathing in any event as part of the deformation resistance in Z240 10.1, which is handy. As for others, the difference between a seismic-suitable nail (2.5") and a standard sheathing nail (2.375") isn't much, it wouldn't be *much* of a risk, but....but.

Might I suggest a policy that evaluates each pre-constructed building on a case-by-case basis, reserving the path to an engineering oversight for structures that are of a certain vintage and/or come from climactic zones that were less onerous (ie: lesser wind/snow loads)? You might also be able to subsume an approach to moving existing non-conforming buildings (like, say, that 1920-era timber-frame church being moved into the community to be renovated into ... whatever.

The problem is that the BC building code allows these buildings to be built to the CSA MH series of codes. There are no provisions in those codes for modifications to the buildings after they leave the factory. It's hard to just jump over to the building code, because they did not comply with the code in the first place.

It really puts owners and building officials in a bind later on.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

The problem is that the BC building code allows these buildings to be built to the CSA MH series of codes. There are no provisions in those codes for modifications to the buildings after they leave the factory. It's hard to just jump over to the building code, because they did not comply with the code in the first place.

It really puts owners and building officials in a bind later on.

OoooOooohh.... ewg.

Is there any back door to Code via the application in 1.1.1.1 because modifying/altering the building takes it outside of the original CSA MH designation? The only angle I have is that a modular home under CSA A277 is designated as code-compliant when it leaves the factory, but any modifications (including the 4" hole drilled through the 2x10 joist by the plumber) are subject to Code afterwards.

 

[tmurray]

OoooOooohh.... ewg.

Is there any back door to Code via the application in 1.1.1.1 because modifying/altering the building takes it outside of the original CSA MH designation? The only angle I have is that a modular home under CSA A277 is designated as code-compliant when it leaves the factory, but any modifications (including the 4" hole drilled through the 2x10 joist by the plumber) are subject to Code afterwards.

This is why Codes Canada has rejected attempts from CSA to recognize the MH series. We can alter these buildings using the code because they were designed under the code.

Most jurisdictions (that I have spoken to) using the MH series require PEng approval for field modifications.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

This is why Codes Canada has rejected attempts from CSA to recognize the MH series. We can alter these buildings using the code because they were designed under the code.

Most jurisdictions (that I have spoken to) using the MH series require PEng approval for field modifications.

Hmm.

I wonder. The BCBC says the code does not apply to:



The language "does not extend to onsite preparations." There is an inference to be made that onsite *alterations* are also not exempt.... but inference is not the same as black-and-white.

Nothing in the BC appeals about this.

Might be worth the OP submitting an interpretation request?

Interpretation Request Form – BOABC

boabc.org

 

[Plumb-bob]

Hmm.

I wonder. The BCBC says the code does not apply to:

View attachment 14540

The language "does not extend to onsite preparations." There is an inference to be made that onsite *alterations* are also not exempt.... but inference is not the same as black-and-white.

Nothing in the BC appeals about this.

Might be worth the OP submitting an interpretation request?

Interpretation Request Form – BOABC

boabc.org

It seams pretty clear to me that alterations of a Z240 building are outside the scope of both the BCBC and the Z240 codes, hence the P.Eng requirement. How can I apply the BCBC to a building framed with notched 2x2 studs and lintels smaller that otherwise required? Or point loads directed to a metal trailer frame that I have no information about?
Our trailer parks in town are filled with old mobile homes that have had additions built onto them, these additions have various foundation types, but all lead to differential movement between the trailer and the foundation. This allows for water and air leakage, which results in mould.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

It seams pretty clear to me that alterations of a Z240 building are outside the scope of both the BCBC and the Z240 codes, hence the P.Eng requirement. How can I apply the BCBC to a building framed with notched 2x2 studs and lintels smaller that otherwise required? Or point loads directed to a metal trailer frame that I have no information about?
Our trailer parks in town are filled with old mobile homes that have had additions built onto them, these additions have various foundation types, but all lead to differential movement between the trailer and the foundation. This allows for water and air leakage, which results in mould.

I feel your pain.... Seems like the engineering approach is rational, but the reality is that if someone is living in one of those junky trailers, they won't be able to afford an engineer....

At least you can regulate the additions?

 

[Plumb-bob]

When I started this job there was a young lady that was buying old and dilapidated trailers, poorly renovating them, and then flipping. When I failed several inspections she said "they are just trailers". I do not think people should have to live in unhealthy or unsafe conditions regardless of building type. So, if somebody cannot afford to do it correctly, then they cannot do it, and the larger picture economic issues can be handled by somebody else.
Hopefully the P.Eng requirement will discourage modifications to Z240 units as they were never meant to be modified in the first place.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

When I started this job there was a young lady that was buying old and dilapidated trailers, poorly renovating them, and then flipping. When I failed several inspections she said "they are just trailers".

Y'all have property standards by-laws? Not sure what BC's dangerous and unsightly foundations are off the top of my head, but several court cases across the country allow habitability to be a test of dilapidation.

 

[tmurray]

Hmm.

I wonder. The BCBC says the code does not apply to:

View attachment 14540

The language "does not extend to onsite preparations." There is an inference to be made that onsite *alterations* are also not exempt.... but inference is not the same as black-and-white.

Nothing in the BC appeals about this.

Might be worth the OP submitting an interpretation request?

Interpretation Request Form – BOABC

boabc.org

I would interpret site preparations within this context to be limited to pad improvement. Contacting the BC BSSB might be a good idea.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

FYI, our folks had the monthly meeting and I raised this as a discussion for how we'd treat minihomes (ie: CSA A277 buildings) moving into a seismic zone. The general view was (a) minihomes - esp those on blocks - aren't at great risk, and (b) NBC A 1.1.1.1(1) says, essentially, don't be a jackwagon.