Lighting switch installed behind a door.

[mikeames]

This I'll disagree with.

For this particular application, we could define "near" as meaning say "when the door is open 90 degrees, the length of a string connecting the tip of the switch to the center point of the doorway shall not exceed 3', where the string may not pass through any opening smaller than 6" in diameter." If we had such a definition, and the door has no holes in it, and is at least 18" wide, a switch behind the door can never be "near".

Of course, as the NEC does not provide that definition, it is debatable whether the AHJ has the authority to interpret "near" as meaning something like that which would rule out switches behind doors.

Cheers, Wayne

Your redefining the word near to fit what you want. Near means a short distance. A switch behind a door is near. You are defining a specific path and distance to circumvent the actual meaning of the word "near". If you want those limitations then just say opposite of the hinge side and within X inches of opening.

I read your explanation and its got 6" holes, 18" of width, Not exceeding 3', and strings passing through openings.

In general, I am against a change requiring that. I don't think its something the code needs to spend time on. If so then there are many other wormholes the follow. I think the customer will enforce this as necessary regarding safety and or convivence.

 

[winnie]

I was thinking along @wwhitney 's lines, but in a perhaps more human sense: for the purpose of a light switch, 'near' means I can reach in and operate the switch before I enter the room.

But without a definition, behind the door is both near and unreachable.

 

[wwhitney]

But using your string just pass it through on the hinge side, and think about an anorexic with skinny arms.

Nice try. I thought of that, which is why I included the verbiage about not passing through an opening smaller than 6" in diameter.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

Your redefining the word near to fit what you want.

I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying one could.

And then I ended with the observation that when the NEC is vague like that, it's debatable whether the AHJ would have the authority to construe the term so precisely.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

I was thinking along @wwhitney 's lines, but in a perhaps more human sense: for the purpose of a light switch, 'near' means I can reach in and operate the switch before I enter the room.

That language is still too vague, reach by whom from where exactly? I just took that idea and made precise where you measure to and from, and how you measure.

Cheers,
Wayne

 

[ptonsparky]

As an EC, we would have done our best to correct the issue as soon as it became apparent. If that meant a PICO, then so be it.

 

[jim dungar]

As an EC, we would have done our best to correct the issue as soon as it became apparent. If that meant a PICO, then so be it.

It should be covered under the building codes and thus be 'fixed' by whoever caused the violation. If the box was there at rough in, and the door swing or slide was added at the finish, why is the EC at fault?

But, I live in the real world and do know the answer of who will be making the fix.

 

[roger]

Nice try. I thought of that, which is why I included the verbiage about not passing through an opening smaller than 6" in diameter.

Cheers, Wayne

And when the NEC includes 6" in diameter you might have an argument. Until then it's as Larry said.

 

[roger]

As an EC, we would have done our best to correct the issue as soon as it became apparent.

IMO there is no problem. If I were the owner or designer I may have wanted it hidden behind the door and there is nothing prohibiting it even though some don't like it.

On top of that, I may not even want a luminaire and that would mean the switch location was meaningless.

 

[wwhitney]

And when the NEC includes 6" in diameter you might have an argument. Until then it's as Larry said.

The 2023 NEC language in 230.70(A)(1) says "The wall-mounted control device shall be located near an entrance to the room on a wall."

"Near" implies a way to measure distance, and absent any further guidance, that way to measure distance could reasonably be interpreted to be via a person's reach path, rather than straight through space without regard to obstacles.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[roger]

"Near" implies a way to measure distance, and absent any further guidance, that way to measure distance could reasonably be interpreted to be via a person's reach path, rather than straight through space without regard to obstacles.

And on the other hand it could mean not far

 

[wwhitney]

And on the other hand it could mean not far

Sure, but judging "near" vs "far" requires deciding on a way to measure distance (or an Elmo).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[LarryFine]

All kidding aside (hey, it could happen!), the customer's preferences should triumph.

In a custom home, I walk room to room with the customer and discuss options were there are some.

 

[roger]

Sure, but judging "near" vs "far" requires deciding on a way to measure distance (or an Elmo).

Cheers, Wayne

Well the style manual says "near(ly)" is a Possibly Unenforceable and Vague Term so they concede that measuring a distance is not necessary. Probably best to just go with "not far".

 

[wwhitney]

Probably best to just go with "not far".

I don't follow, to say that something is "not far" still requires knowing how to measure distance, so just changing "near" to "not far" doesn't make anything clearer.

For example, if you're talking about the distance between two points on opposite sides of a small river, you might say they are not far apart "as the crow flies" or if the river is shallow enough to cross. But if the nearest crossing point for the river is 5 miles away, then I'd be inclined to say the two points are pretty far apart.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[LarryFine]

I don't follow, to say that something is "not far" still requires knowing how to measure distance, so just changing "near" to "not far" doesn't make anything clearer.

How do you measure for compliance with a non-specified distance?

 

[roger]

I don't follow, to say that something is "not far" still requires knowing how to measure distance, so just changing "near" to "not far" doesn't make anything clearer.

For example, if you're talking about the distance between two points on opposite sides of a small river, you might say they are not far apart "as the crow flies" or if the river is shallow enough to cross. But if the nearest crossing point for the river is 5 miles away, then I'd be inclined to say the two points are pretty far apart.

Cheers, Wayne

You keep floundering trying to justify your dislike for the location. If you want to argue the NEC wording for the sake of arguing contact the TCC and tell them you can help them out.

 

[ptonsparky]

It should be covered under the building codes and thus be 'fixed' by whoever caused the violation. If the box was there at rough in, and the door swing or slide was added at the finish, why is the EC at fault?

But, I live in the real world and do know the answer of who will be making the fix.

Not saying it is the ECs fault, but most likely the general will not be removing and replacing a door. Who pays? That's another thread.

 

[roger]

It should be covered under the building codes and thus be 'fixed' by whoever caused the violation. If the box was there at rough in, and the door swing or slide was added at the finish, why is the EC at fault?

But, I live in the real world and do know the answer of who will be making the fix.

Actually in one location I worked in the inspectors would in fact write on the red tag who caused the violation. This saved sub contractors a lot of grief.

 

[wwhitney]

You keep floundering trying to justify your dislike for the location.

I'm not taking a position either way on whether it is prohibited by the NEC language.

I'm just saying that in deciding what is "near", the AHJ may reasonably use a distance measure based on a person reaching for the switch. In which case a switch behind a door is "farther" away from the entrance than if the door swing were reversed.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to argue that the text is 230.70(A)(1) is unenforceable as the term "near" is vague, as per your reference to the NEC Style Manual.

Cheers, Wayne