Island and peninsula receptacle location

Status
Not open for further replies.
The hole would make for a better, and perhaps safer, design. But it would not satisfy the language of the code article in question. That said, if I were the inspector, and if it were within my authority to do so, I would be willing to grant a variance for this install.
 
PHP:
John120/240 said:
The hole prevents the cord from dangling over the edge of the island. On a 36" wide island you

would be able to place recptacle closer to center elimanting knee interfence when sitting.
Click to expand...

I understand what the hole would do, I am saying it would change nothing as far as the code rules for receptacal placement.
 
iwire said:
Not being an inspector I can't answer if I would fail it or not. :)

Code wise I don't see how the hole makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Well that's interesting. You are wishy-washy on this quuestion that clearly violates code, but you were pretty adament on my answer that legally follows code.

Gee? Do you have a bias there Bob? Should an answer's correctness depend on who presents it? I don't think so.

My previous answer did not violate code. If you think it does, then I would like to hear the reason without your personal grudge against me.

The corbel represents a base support, as dictated by code. Yes it is defesible. Yes, I would defend it in a court of law. Yes, I would win in a court of law.
 
highvolts582 said:
I used to get it now I don't I read 5 times and I don't get it. I have 2 beach cottages one with and island and one with peninsula. All flat surface. Nothing like sinks or ovens. Each counter top has 10 inch over hang on all sides except draw and cabinet door side. Does anyone think it's ok to locate receptacles under the 10 inch overhang near corner close to the cabinet and draw side or should I have told these people they can not have the over hang on end of peninsula to. I left the whip and I was going to read the code later and work it out now I don't see a clear way through maybe I am missing something installing tomorrow any advice would be a god send.

Thanks
Mike
Click to expand...

The peninsula is easy, code requires ONE outlet. Where the peninsula meets the wall is good enough for Mike Holt. no other outlets required.
The island..... same thing, minimum one receptacle, but if you have overhang..... that's a tough one. I would call it a surface mount receptacle(they make them nowadays where they pop out of the counter)
 
charlie b said:
The hole would make for a better, and perhaps safer, design. But it would not satisfy the language of the code article in question. That said, if I were the inspector, and if it were within my authority to do so, I would be willing to grant a variance for this install.
Click to expand...

Glad to see someone who would be willing/able to ACT as an AHJ.

That said, what is the "edge" of a counter? Is the edge of a hole a countertop edge?;)
 
Strife said:
The peninsula is easy, code requires ONE outlet. Where the peninsula meets the wall is good enough for Mike Holt. no other outlets required.
Click to expand...

I have never heard that before?:?

First you don't measure a peninsula from the wall, you measure it from the connecting edge of the countertop, if it is over 24" it needs a receptacle in the peninsula area which starts at the connecting edge not the wall.

See below in red:

210.52(C)(3) Peninsular Counter top Spaces. At least one receptacle
outlet shall be installed at each peninsular countertop
space with a long dimension of 600 mm (24 in.) or greater
and a short dimension of 300 mm (12 in.) or greater. A
peninsular countertop is measured from the connecting
edge.
Click to expand...

And if the counter space is broken by a cooktop or sink you could be required to even install another receptacle, see 210.52(C)(4)
 
Strife said:
The peninsula is easy, code requires ONE outlet. Where the peninsula meets the wall is good enough for Mike Holt. no other outlets required.
The island..... same thing, minimum one receptacle, but if you have overhang..... that's a tough one. I would call it a surface mount receptacle(they make them nowadays where they pop out of the counter)
Click to expand...

I like his opinion. However*****

IMHO the peninsula starts at the counter's edge not the wall.

What about this one? Does the sink, cooktop, or anything else change your mind?


kitchen_peninsula1.jpg
 
hurk27 said:
I have never heard that before?:?

First you don't measure a peninsula from the wall, you measure it from the connecting edge of the countertop, if it is over 24" it needs a receptacle in the peninsula area which starts at the connecting edge not the wall.

See below in red:



And if the counter space is broken by a cooktop or sink you could be required to even install another receptacle, see 210.52(C)(4)
Click to expand...

You beat me!!!!!:rant:
 
Rick Christopherson said:
My previous answer did not violate code. If you think it does, then I would like to hear the reason without your personal grudge against me. . . .The corbel represents a base support, as dictated by code.
Click to expand...
I have no grudge against you, but I do think your concept would not satisfy the code requirements. The reason is that the overhang is measured to the "support base." The corbel you offer as a solution is not the base that is supporting the weight of the countertop. Depending on its method of attachment, it might carry some share of the load. But if you remove the corbel, the countertop's weight will still be carried by the base cabinetry. By contrast, if you tried to remove the base cabinetry and leave only the corbel, there would be no support for the weight of the countertop. From this I infer that the code language is addressing the distance from the edge of the countertop to the face of the base cabinetry. What makes that easier for me to believe is my earlier discussion about putting bar stools under the overhang.
 
jxofaltrds said:
IMHO the peninsula starts at the counter's edge not the wall.
Click to expand...
Looking at the photo you posted, it seems to me that the countertop is one continuous section along the wall and into the peninsula area. So it is not clear whether the peninsula begins at the wall or at the point 24" away from the wall at which the wall counter space ends. But I would say that a receptacle mounted on the wall could be used by an appliance sitting on the peninsula area. So I would call that acceptable.
 
charlie b said:
I have no grudge against you, but I do think your concept would not satisfy the code requirements. The reason is that the overhang is measured to the "support base." The corbel you offer as a solution is not the base that is supporting the weight of the countertop. Depending on its method of attachment, it might carry some share of the load. But if you remove the corbel, the countertop's weight will still be carried by the base cabinetry. By contrast, if you tried to remove the base cabinetry and leave only the corbel, there would be no support for the weight of the countertop. From this I infer that the code language is addressing the distance from the edge of the countertop to the face of the base cabinetry. What makes that easier for me to believe is my earlier discussion about putting bar stools under the overhang.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your well thought out response, Charlie. However, a corbel does technically constitute a support from an engineering, and therefore legal, standpoint. Consider the case of a flexible countertop substrate. One that will sag without support. If that corbel is removed, then the countertop will sag. It is therefore a support, and meets the legal definition of code as such.

Yes, I fully understand that it is a technicality and workaround, but it is fully legal and defensible in a court of law.

Some readers might be wondering why I keep saying "in a court of law". That's because that is what the NEC represents once it is adopted by local governments. The NEC is a private institution and is nothing more than words on paper. But once it gets adopted by local government, it becomes law, and its words become legal jargon. To either contest or defend a passage of code, it becomes a matter of legal wording.

You can have a local inspector that argues whether it is or is not code compliant, but once it is kicked up the chain, it becomes a legal issue. Words do matter. That's the reason why the NEC is written in such "legalese" language.
 
I understand the relationship between standards and codes, between the NFPA publication and the state and local laws. I also know that the NEC does not include the words, "more than six inches beyond any structural supporting members." Instead, the 6" is measured to the countertop's "support base." Please note, "base." That is the cabinet below the countertop, in the minds of many. So for my part at least, I would not place a bet in your favor, if it ever came to a court case.
 
charlie b said:
Looking at the photo you posted, it seems to me that the countertop is one continuous section along the wall and into the peninsula area. So it is not clear whether the peninsula begins at the wall or at the point 24" away from the wall at which the wall counter space ends. But I would say that a receptacle mounted on the wall could be used by an appliance sitting on the peninsula area. So I would call that acceptable.
Click to expand...

Charlie, Not to create another 200 post thread but it has been generally accepted that the connected edge of a countertop is the edge at the front (side away from the wall) where the countertop changes direction which can be any angle but in the above photo is a 90 deg change, if we look at the 2011 hand book EXHIBIT 210.29 on page 107 we can see this by the line drawn at this edge that shows where the peninsula measurement starts, many articles have been written on this and one can be found HERE which was published back in 2002, so this has been an accepted method for a long time, I have been at many IAEI and NFPA meetings that this has come up and confirmed as the point from where we make the 24" measurement from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top