680.26 Interpretation

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mrhandy

Member
Location
New Jersey
Hey guys, first time poster. I own a remodeling company in NJ. Here is the current problem I'm having and would like some opinions, since I'm not an electrician.

We contracted to replace the ceramic floor tile around an indoor pool as well as replace the carpeted walls with tile and paneling. We got no permits, since we were only replacing existing finishes. Floor is poured concrete from 1989 when the indoor pool was constructed. Walls were plywood covered with carpet. Only carpet was removed from the walls in preperation for new tile and paneling and we removed the tile and thinset from the floor without disruption to the concrete floor.

The town code official shows up and red stickers us for no permits, He states that since we removed the thinset and tile from the floor that we now need to comply with 680.26 and install a 3ft perimeter bond around the pool. I spoke to my electrician and he thinks that it is not warrented to need to bring the pool up to current code. I could understand if we were doing anything else in the room, but just replacing tile opens us up to this code enforcement seems unfair, not to mention a great cost to the homeowner.

Any advise on how to approach this, or am I stuck with the code officials interpritation of the 2008 code?

Thanks
 
In Millbrae, Ca. they have an ordinance that forces home owners to do things like install fire sprinklers in the garage if any repairs are done to the home costing $1000 dollars or more.
 
mrhandy said:
The town code official shows up and red stickers us for no permits, He states that since we removed the thinset and tile from the floor that we now need to comply with 680.26 and install a 3ft perimeter bond around the pool. I spoke to my electrician and he thinks that it is not warrented to need to bring the pool up to current code. I could understand if we were doing anything else in the room, but just replacing tile opens us up to this code enforcement seems unfair, not to mention a great cost to the homeowner.
Any advise on how to approach this, or am I stuck with the code officials interpritation of the 2008 code?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is a big cost to the homeowner but if I owned a pool I believe I would want the safety of the equipotential bonding.

Only the locals there can tell you what is required but if you believe this unfair then I would call the head of the department and state your case.
 
I would take a look at the NJ building code ... there is nothing in the NEC that he can cite ,..
 
Your going to have to deal with your AHJ he is the only one that counts. No matter what is said on this forum. They may have an apeal process where you may be able to voice your opion and get the results you want. Welcome to the forum.
 
The building official is concerned with the tile and grout being conductive and he wants it included in the equipotential plane around the pool area. Is there a way to install #8 solid cu throughout this area and route it back to the filter canister and use a "Bondsafe 680" bonding adapter? This would accomplish including this new area with the rest of the existing equipotential plane at a minimum cost, it seems to me. Just a thought.
 
Thanks for the replys. It seems to me that this issue should be covered by NJ's Rehabilitation Subcode. Under the code, this should be considered a "Repair" or at most a renovation.

The issue is that to install a #8 wire grid would raise up the plane of the floor above the pool coping. Currently, there is just enough space to replace the tile. I understand the concern of the code official, but I feel that this interpritation is unwarrented. I would like to be in a position to have the Homeowner have the choice. My main concern is what are they doing on this job to begin with, As far as I knew, flooring and wall covering replacement does not require a permit unless you expose the underlying framing. Walls are still covered with plywood and the concrete subfloor is undisturbed.

Thanks for the replys and assistance. I guess I'm off to the building department to plead my case. I plan to point to the NJ Rehabilitation Sub-code to try to make my points.

Thanks
 
You can also call the New Jersey DCA unit at (609) 984-7609 for an opinion. If you fax them the question they will fax back a response you can take with you.
 
I'm fairly new to this forum also. Please be aware that my comments are MY opinion only.
You might want to review UCC Ordinary Maintenance section NJAC 5:23-2.7(c)1.ii. first for 25% of wall covering, then section 2.7(c)1.viii. for flooring material.
If it is determined permits are required then I believe this will be a renovation whereas you will want to review sections 6.5 and 6.7 (for definition of renovation see 6.3).
This information is available online at www.nj.gov/dca/codes and go over to the center column and scroll down to ordinary maintenance then to rehab code.
 
Another Code Question

Another Code Question

As long as were on a code issue can anyone explain NEC 250.104(B) on Bonding Metal Gas Pipes, You have to Bond inside a residence but you Cannot Bond it underground, What type of bushing is going to seperate it From the Service Entrance and where it enters the house, I talked to an HVAC contrator and he could not tell me, seems that if it got struck by lightning it would probably jump across anything small ?????:confused:
 
Mattman said:
As long as were on a code issue can anyone explain NEC 250.104(B) on Bonding Metal Gas Pipes, You have to Bond inside a residence but you Cannot Bond it underground, What type of bushing is going to seperate it From the Service Entrance and where it enters the house, I talked to an HVAC contrator and he could not tell me, seems that if it got struck by lightning it would probably jump across anything small ?????:confused:
Click to expand...


Your question isn't related to this particular topic. I'm not a moderator and I hope I don't get them mad at me but it would be better if you started a new thread with your question. If you have any questions or need some help with anything you can send me a private message (PM) or ask almost anyone here how to do things.

Welcome aboard Mattman
 
Just to close the loop....

I met with the inspector and the job is covered by the NJ Rehabilitation Sub-Code, however, pools are an exception to the code. In light of the tile level problem by the pool coping, the inspector has agreed to allow us to chip a hole in the subfloor to find the rebar or mesh in the concrete. After that, we need to tie the radiators into that metal and insure that all is bonded back to the pump.

Overall, not a bad result. The town officials were good to work with. Thanks to all the responded with advice.
 
I think your problem was that you underbid another contractor or the owners have neighbors with nose problems. Glad you found a cure but i really dont think it was needed. If no problem in 20 years why now.
 
Another Update:

I got a call back from the State. It seems after all this the local inspector is mistaken. No additional work is required at all. 680.26 only applies for new construction or if the Concrete is removed and replaced. At this point, I think I will just eat the $300 and have the radiators tied into the rebar. I just seems that at least I'll keep the peace and let the local code official win his small battle rather than have him bust my chops.

Thanks again everyone for the comments.
 
mrhandy said:
Another Update:

I got a call back from the State. It seems after all this the local inspector is mistaken. No additional work is required at all. 680.26 only applies for new construction or if the Concrete is removed and replaced. At this point, I think I will just eat the $300 and have the radiators tied into the rebar. I just seems that at least I'll keep the peace and let the local code official win his small battle rather than have him bust my chops.

Thanks again everyone for the comments.
Click to expand...


Code officials make mistakes too. IMO you should correct them when they're wrong. Fortunately New Jersey has a very good system for you to get the right information. When in doubt call Suzanne Borek at the DCA, she's highly knowledgeable and will speak to an official or inspector whom she feels is making an error to ensure that code enforcement is done correctly.
 
your taking the wrong path. Charge customer for work demanded and let them go after the cost that was not needed. Why should you eat a $300 education. Are you scared to fight back ? Fight and they think twice about tagging, let them win and you will be back here with another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top