- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
George,
What part of 110.26 permits plants in the required workspace?
panel clearance vs. property line
- Thread starter pbowers
- Start date
- Status
What part of 110.26 permits plants in the required workspace?
- Location
- Massachusetts
Interesting question, would you say 110.26 prohibits lawn grass in the work space? How about tall ornamental grass? How about snow?
I do see a difference between 2" of grass and a large bush but the NEC really does not make any allowances for things we often see in the work space.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
If you read what I wrote, I wasn't disputing that. I was using that fact (and several ROPs) to prove my point.
The code is a permissive document, without a prohibition...Don said:
I cannot discriminate against the mighty oak, for it was once a little nut like me. If I have every right to be there...
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
I am going to get a picture of this service I saw a couple weeks ago, a prospect's house. Ivy so firmly adhered to the house and the service I could barely get the lid open without a saw - wildest thing I'd ever seen like that. You could only see the meter poking through when I first walked up on it.
Somehow, I survived.
Somehow, I survived.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
So then what is not permitted in the workspace? Space implies the lack of a physical object.
cschmid
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern cold country
no problem with any of those things here, panels go in the house not outside..
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
I like Don's common sense approach.
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
Hope you don't mind - but I'm gonna use that one....
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
Actually, it does not use that verbiage at all. What it actually says is this:
Since the thing is in the same place as it has been for 80 years, one could well argue that access has been provided and has been maintained for 80 some years. Just because someone might remove that access in the future does not make it a code violation today.
In any case, one could also argue that the HO has earned a de facto easement based on the neighbor not complaining about the existing device that extends into the setback.
There is also a possibility that the property line is not exactly where the inspector might have thought it is. It is also not unusual for local codes to prohibit installing a fence under the conditions described.
I think there are a lot of good arguments that the HO could make. Whether the pin heads at the inspection department listen is another thing.
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
Does that mean there can never be anything in that space? The normal interpretation seems to be that its Ok for the working space to extend into a hallway or other location where people and forklifts regularly intrude on that space (although I have seen a few plants where they have built fences around the working spaces for electrical panels location in corridors).
Last edited:
Sure it does. It's right there in the part you quoted:
Yes, the fact that this is an existing building does leave some room for discussion. Its not clear to me from the OP just what was involved in the project. If it involved a new service, then I think the case for treating it as an existing condition is lessened. I do think it is over the line to call the folks at the inspection department pin heads because they don't see it your way.
The difference is that in your example here, the building owner owns the hallway. By not building something, or storing something there, he is providing the working space. He can not provide working space on property that belongs to someone else.
Just another example: A short time ago, plans were presented for a new building. The service was to be located on a wall that was 1 foot away from the property line. (This was a commercial building in a zone where zero lot line construction is allowed by the zoning ordinance). I made them move the service to the front. Some here seem to think that I should have looked at the site, and since there was no building on the adjoining property, approve the plan?? Then in a year or so, when the owner next door builds a building right up on the property line and there is less than a foot between it and the service....
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
The problem is that you are adding something to the rule that does not exist. It does not state the working space has to be on the owner's property. Just that is has to be there. How the space is provided is not an issue. The fact is that the working space is there. Its not the inspector's job to jack around with people on some vague theory that at some point in the future something might change that might create a code violation.
They may well be pin heads becasue they are using their position to jack around with people just for the sport of it. Its a lot more common than most people in such positions will ever admit to.
Last edited:
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
The first statemnt above is a contradiction - maintained space for 80 years - no violation - failure to continue to maintain that space is a violation today...
The second statement would require a legally binding agreement - if and only if the city or town allows such - many will not, and if they do they want it in blood. Otherwise there would be this wild trend of service changes squatter marching across the land swallowing up all that is not built upon. But I bet that would be a great way to sell them - "If you get this service up-grade you also get 30" of your neighbors frontage. I'll slap it up when he's not looking." :roll: I could also imagine being sued for it too.
IMO yes - the inspector is well within his rights as a building official to question illegal easement of a propertly line if you want to look at it that way. And well within those same rights to say you do not have sufficient workspace. If a surveryor is required to prove that right or wrong - so be it. But often one could do that with a site plan, or staking a line to known and accepted boundaries like the fence he sited down, PL, or LL cuts in the sidewalk, nearby monuments or markers, city records, deeds & maps, etc...
mjf
Senior Member
Property line
Property line
I didn't read this whole thread, so if I am repeating others i apologize in advance.
In my area, if you are to install a fence, it must be 2' in from your property line (and the "pretty" side faces away from your house). Therefore, a fence can't infringe on the panel working space. If the panel presently has 3' to the property line, I don't see how an AHJ can say it is a violation. JMHO.
Property line
I didn't read this whole thread, so if I am repeating others i apologize in advance.
In my area, if you are to install a fence, it must be 2' in from your property line (and the "pretty" side faces away from your house). Therefore, a fence can't infringe on the panel working space. If the panel presently has 3' to the property line, I don't see how an AHJ can say it is a violation. JMHO.
lakee911
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, OH
But the code says that it shall be provided. Whenever the code requires something to be done, it is implied that it is the owner or the contractor's responsibility to to that, not the next door neighbor's responsibility. So in this case it is the owner or contractor's responsibility to provide the space, and as I have stated, he cannot provide space on property that he does not own. Just because the next door neighbor has not built in that location yet does not imply that he has, or is willing to, provide that space. Now, if the next door neighbor were to provide the space, in the form of some type of easement, then I think the code would be satisfied.
I will admit that in the case brought up in the OP, 4" or so may not be enough to justify a requirement to move the service. I am speaking more to the general requirement that required working space needs to be provided on the owner's property.
- Status