Panel box above dryer legal or not

Status
Not open for further replies.
petersonra said:
A better question to ask would be:

Has anyone ever done this and had an inspector fail the install even though no dryer was present and thus no violation of the working space existed at the time of the inspection?
Click to expand...
My answer is never even tried it as I knew chances of getting such a thing past inspector was very slim.
 
iwire said:
So you had inspector allow a panel in a spot that had a vent, electrical outlet and / or a gas line all for a dryer that had yet to arrive?

In other words the inspector does not do their job.
Click to expand...
I think that you are misreading readydave8's answer.
I see it as, "YES, I have had an inspector fail an installation where the dryer was not there yet."
 
iwire said:
So you had inspector allow a panel in a spot that had a vent, electrical outlet and / or a gas line all for a dryer that had yet to arrive?

In other words the inspector does not do their job.
Click to expand...


I know where there is an apartment complex of maybe 300 or so units and every panel that I have seen there is in the washer/dryer closet.

I know many of the inspectors and I know they would not have let anyone get away with that so all I can think is that the EC must have caught a new inspector and just talked him/her into it.

You know the old "if the glove doesn't fit you must equit") or if the dryer is not there then it's not a violation.
 
GoldDigger said:
I think that you are misreading readydave8's answer.
I see it as, "YES, I have had an inspector fail an installation where the dryer was not there yet."
Click to expand...

that was my take.

But I don't see how an inspector can fail an install based solely on the possibility that at some future point in time there could be a violation.

That would be a serious constitutional issue and would be seen that way by most any judge.
 
petersonra said:
that was my take.

But I don't see how an inspector can fail an install based solely on the possibility that at some future point in time there could be a violation.

That would be a serious constitutional issue and would be seen that way by most any judge.
Click to expand...


I would fail it in a heartbeat. I don't see how it can be allowed knowing full well the dryer will be installed there-- why else is there a vent and a dryer outlet?

My first question is why would you install a panel over a potential dryer area
 
petersonra said:
that was my take.

But I don't see how an inspector can fail an install based solely on the possibility that at some future point in time there could be a violation.

That would be a serious constitutional issue and would be seen that way by most any judge.
Click to expand...
":)Your honor, of course we would not install clothes dryer to this hookup."
 
readydave8 said:
After reading this thread, I have one question:

Has anyone argued with an inspector that, just because there are hookups for dryer in front of panel, does not necessarily mean that there will be a dryer there, and won that argument?
Click to expand...
Sorry to quote myself, but I would still like an answer to this question.
 
readydave8 said:
":)Your honor, of course we would not install clothes dryer to this hookup."
Click to expand...

There is no requirement in the code at all that any such statement be made about what some future situation might entail.

There is just no violation at the time of inspection so legally I do not see how any inspector can fail it.
 
It should not get past rough in -- where all is anticipated as locations for install, whether it be a range, shower,laundry, kitchen, or whatever code may require specific electrical installs are for the planned rough in. I see future hottub disconnects all the time, While I cannot stop the install of the branch circuit to a location, I do review with the responsible party circumstances that need to be addressed if & when a hottub is installed. If they install the hottub to close to outlets and have another inspection they may fail. Keep in mind that the future hottub is gennerally just electrical only.
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
Inspectors, like the rest of us do not like to be treated like idiots. :)
Click to expand...

petersonra said:
There is just no violation at the time of inspection so legally I do not see how any inspector can fail it.
Click to expand...


Bob I think Bob said it best, inspectors are not idiots and they don't like to be treated as idiots.

But they do not have to make assumptions as to the use of this space. When you submit a set of plans for review you have shown there is to be a washer and dryer in this space. The circuit for the dryer will be marked in the panel as "dryer" circuit.

You don't have to put a dryer there today, tomorrow or even six months from now but you have shown your intentions to put a dryer in that location.

Disputes over building codes do not go before a judge and jury. You can take the case to the state level (DCA) over the enforcement of these codes but I think you would lose. You do know that if you have a vent sticking out or gas stub-up that you have already violated the working space requirement.

I would ask why it's so important to have a panel in a washer /dryer closet. I would rather have it showing in a hallway. I have seen it done both ways and the apartments stay rented so what's the advantage.
 
petersonra said:
that was my take.

But I don't see how an inspector can fail an install based solely on the possibility that at some future point in time there could be a violation.

That would be a serious constitutional issue and would be seen that way by most any judge.
Click to expand...
Well if we are going to bring the constitution into the picture one has to ask if building codes adopted as law (including electrical codes) don't create constitutional issues.:angel:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top