panel clearance vs. property line

[pbowers]

An inspector did not clear a recent project of mine due to the main service panel clearance. Currently there is 3 ft. of clearance in front of the 200 amp service. However, there is only 3 ft. from the house to the property line (so the "clearance" extends the width of the panel into the adjacent property). There are no current obstructions, his reservation was with the potential for the adjacent property owner to install a fence on the property line in the future thereby inhibiting the 3 ft. clearance space. He wants me to move the panel from the side of the house with a concrete walkway to the front of the house, which aside from the detrimental visual aspect, is above a planted area. The likelihood of the neighbor installing a fence is much less likely than the property owner to plant something to obstruct the view (and clearance) of the panel in front of his house that this seems obvious and ridiculous to me to move. What are the precedents for this? I am unfortunately dealing with a house built in a different age, when setbacks were not what they are today.................

 

[George Stolz]

After a PM from the OP, he states that he is a not solely an anthropologist but also a journeyman electrician, so I am reopening the thread.

IMO, the fact that the fence does not currently exist should sway the AHJ into dismissing the inspector's clearance concern. Shrubbery does not constitute a violation of 110.26, IMO, as it can be readily dispatched without damaging the building.

 

[e57]

I'm glad this got re-opened - even if the OP's profile mentions being a GC....

Anyway - I differ in opinion of, as does the AHJ here, that plantings are a violation of 110.26 - and depending on who you get - the property line as well.

110.26(A). Revise this section as follows:​

(A) Working Space. Working space for
equipment operation at 600 volts, nominal, or less to
ground and likely to require examination, adjustment,
servicing, or maintenance while energized shall ​

​

be
level and comply with the dimensions of 11 0.26(A)(1),
(A)(2), and (A)(3) or as required or permitted
elsewhere in this Code.​

110. 26(B). Revise this section asfollows:​

(B) Clear Spaces. Working space required by
this Section shall not be used for storage. When
normallly enclosed live parts are exposed for inspection
or servicing, the working space, if in a passageway or
general open space, shall be suitably guarded. The​

standing area of the workspace shall be level.

(Bold by them) And when they mean level - they mean it - nothing higher than a blade of grass, or it needs to get paved. No trees or shrubs someone might come to love... CLEAR - LEVEL Truthfully - I like it... I once got stuck working on a panel in another city where the landscapered created a faux dry creek bed in front of the panel - a real ankle breaker.... (Well I twisted it...)


And our local POCO - NOW - specifically states that workspace over a property line are not allowed.
See page 7

 

[pfalcon]

Our local heretic answered the shrubbery question very well I believe - Level is Level.

And if the owner plants shrubs in front of it then it's his fault. He can wait for service until the landscaping is ripped out.

But if the neighbor gets a dog and wants a fence who do we blame? By what right do you remove or ban his fence? Who is at fault to foot the bill over relocating the panel then?

Existing conditions are fine as long as the responsible party, the owner, is in control of the conditions. I believe the property line should be viewed as a dead wall.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

If the violation does not exist at the time of inspection there is "NO VIOLATION" This would be the same as a patrolman giving you a speeding ticket just in case you do in the future. Predicting the future is not the inspectors job and he should leave well enough alone.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

The access required to the panel needs to be in the control of the owner of the panel. You cannot extend your access onto property that you don't control.

 

[Rockyd]

I'm all for the individual, and property rights...castle doctrine and all. However, your property rights end at your property line. Poor planning doesn't make it right, and if your locality has laws that reflect that the inspector's point of view in writing, then it is the law.

Having a hard time believing that if this is a Single Family Dwelling that it doesn't have a five foot set back! What does the law say where you're at?

Much as I'd like to tell the inspector that 90.4 doesn't allow him to run amuck, I believe he is in the right in regard to other rules, other than the NEC, and is just enforcing the rule of law.

 

[George Stolz]

Anyway - I differ in opinion of, as does the AHJ here, that plantings are a violation of 110.26 - and depending on who you get - the property line as well.

(Bold by them) And when they mean level - they mean it - nothing higher than a blade of grass, or it needs to get paved. No trees or shrubs someone might come to love...And our local POCO - NOW - specifically states that workspace over a property line are not allowed.
See page 7

Mark, if the working space were required to be level, then San Francisco would not have to revise the NEC to make it so.

1-106 Log #441 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A))
_____________________________________________________________
Submitter: W. Creighton Schwan, Hayward, CA
Recommendation: Add to (A), starting in line 6:
The grade, floor or platform of the working space shall be horizontal, flat, and level, except where necessarily sloped to drain.
Substantiation: <Deleted>
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The proposed language is too restrictive. For example, it could impact the installation of a disconnect means on the roof of a dwelling unit. ....<Deleted>
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

1-11 3 Log #1429 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A)(3))
_____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX
Recommendation: Revise Section 110.26(A)(3) as follows:
(3) Height of Working Space. The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E). Stairs or stair treads shall not be permitted as the grade, floor, or platform as referred to in this section. Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment.
Substantiation: While I am mindful of the challenges that CMP-1 has faced
in the past with adding stairs to this section, there still is an apparent need and obvious reasons for Code language that addresses the issue. ...<Deleted>
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Proposal 1-115.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1

1-11 4 Log #1639 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A)(3) (New) )
_____________________________________________________________
Submitter: L. Keith Lofland, International Association of Electrical Inspectors
Recommendation: Add new text as follows:
(3) Height of Working Space. The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 11 0.26(E). Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment. For the purpose of this section, interior stairways do not conform to the grade, floor, or platform .
Substantiation: <Deleted>
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Proposal 1-115.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1

1-11 5 Log #1892 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A)(3))
_____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Michael J. Johnston, Plano, TX
Recommendation: Revise Section 11 0.26(A)(3) as follows:
(3) Height of Working Space. The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E). Stairs or stair treads shall not be permitted as the grade, floor, or platform as referred to in this section. ...
<Snip>
Panel Statement: The proposed requirement is restrictive and unnecessary. Qualified persons routinely work from various surface areas and conditions that may be within the workspace. If necessary, the qualified person working on the equipment can create a flat and level workspace. Generally, the height measurement would be from the lowest grade, floor, or platform surface. CMP-1 concludes that the proposal does not contain a clear statement of the problem or substantiation for the change. See the Regulations Governing Committee Projects, sections 4.3.3(b) and (d).

There is no NEC requirement for the working space to be level, and there is no requirement for the working space to not contain plants.

 

[Rockyd]

Much as I'd like to tell the inspector that 90.4 doesn't allow him to run amuck, I believe he is in the right in regard to other rules, other than the NEC, and is just enforcing the rule of law.

So then is outside the scope of this forum?

 

[lakee911]

What if the property owner got an easement from the neighbor that he is to have access now and in the future?

 

[petersonra]

Here there is either a 6 or 10 foot setback required.

I don't know what the setback requirement is where this building is located but I am guessing this device is violating whatever the rule happens to be.

I do not believe it is violating the working space rule though.

 

[DaveBowden]

How about flush mounting the panel?

 

[pbowers]

give me a variance

give me a variance

I should clear up that this was a service upgrade. Panel is in the same location as it was/has been for the last 80 years or so (not sure when they replaced the gas lights with electricity). The adjacent property at the moment has an asphalt driveway leading up to a garage (and the property line) - IMO not likely to be fenced........thought about the flush mount idea.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

In situations like this, I think it's high time the utilities eengaged in remote metering where nothing but a disco is required on the actual structure...

 

[electricguy61]

Just curious: how does the inspector know where the property line is?

Are there survey markers there?

 

[pbowers]

There is a fence there. It separates the two properties and ends at the garage on the adjacent property, and goes a bit further towards the street on the subject property, stopping before the panel and front of the house. He was pretty much eyeballing it and taking a not very accurate measurement with his tape.

 

[petersonra]

I should clear up that this was a service upgrade. Panel is in the same location as it was/has been for the last 80 years or so (not sure when they replaced the gas lights with electricity). The adjacent property at the moment has an asphalt driveway leading up to a garage (and the property line) - IMO not likely to be fenced........thought about the flush mount idea.

The more I think about this the more I think you are going to end up moving the thing.

Just because it violated the setback for all these years does not mean you can install a new device there that violates the setback.

is there some kind of procedure by which the home owner can beg for some kind of dispensation?

 

[e57]

There is a fence there. It separates the two properties and ends at the garage on the adjacent property, and goes a bit further towards the street on the subject property, stopping before the panel and front of the house. He was pretty much eyeballing it and taking a not very accurate measurement with his tape.

Sounds like you need a surveyor... :roll: But if it is obvious - the inspector can not allow you to impinge on the rights of the neighbor and down the line say he can not build something on his land by placement of a panel on your clients property....

 

[eprice]

I do not believe it is violating the working space rule though.

Don't mean to single you out for my response, just using your quote to get at the thought I wanted to address.

I think there is a violation of the working space rule in the scenario described. 110.26 requires that working space be provided and maintained. A property owner does not have the legal right to provide and maintain something that extends onto property belonging to someone else.

 

[e57]

Mark, if the working space were required to be level, then San Francisco would not have to revise the NEC to make it so.







There is no NEC requirement for the working space to be level, and there is no requirement for the working space to not contain plants.

If you look closer at what I posted - SF did amend the '07 CEC/'05 NEC for the level part. And plants trees and other vegetation are subject to interpretation IMO. An oak tree is pretty permanent as much as a fence or hedge would be. Sure all 3 could easily be removed with a chain saw - but that's not what they go for here. I was once forced to yank out a shrub the owner planted before my inspection because the inspector had the feeling it would be 5' tall in a few years. I told the owner she could replant it after I left.... But with it there - I have no green tag. This part is all about safety of the worker - I would figure anyone who had to climb through a bush to get to a panel would be clearly on the side of safe work-space over a hydrangea any day.