Partially Covered Junction Box 314.29

Status
Not open for further replies.
jap said:
Because the inspector called it too soon that's why.

...

The job is simply not done yet because the fixture is not installed....
Click to expand...

Agreed, but this seems to be noted now because the "inspector" is the owner, and he has to figure out who's responsible to move their box or tile, depending on the details of the scope of work he gave them.
 
Craigv said:
Jap said it isn't a violation because the job isn't finished. So basically any violations seen at rough aren't violations...the job isn't done. Makes no sense.
I'm simply saying that if an inspector cites a code violation at any point, it's a violation as it stands at the time he sees it. To say anything to the effect of, "that's not a violation because the job isn't finished" has no logic and is irrelevant to the question of whether the work as pictured is code compliant. It wasn't: even if the OP's cited article is arguable or wrong, the box (a 4x4, not a 1g as some have surmised) could not mount a cover, extension or device with only one screw, so 110.3(B) and was obviously set back more than 1/4" (it's set back from both layers of tile...look closely), so 314.20.
Click to expand...
It *might be* a violation, we haven't clarified exactly what we have here. It certainly isn't something holding up the final inspection as far as we know at this point. If it is the final inspection where is the emergency light that is supposed to be there?

Nothing wrong with mentioning that something needs to change there before the light gets installed if this was just an observation at this point in the process.

If I received a written correction notice for this when it wasn't the final inspection, I'd be on that inspector and/or his supervisor, if he simply mentioned something needs done there before it is all done I have no problem with that.
 
kwired said:
It *might be* a violation, we haven't clarified exactly what we have here. It certainly isn't something holding up the final inspection as far as we know at this point. If it is the final inspection where is the emergency light that is supposed to be there?

Nothing wrong with mentioning that something needs to change there before the light gets installed if this was just an observation at this point in the process.

If I received a written correction notice for this when it wasn't the final inspection, I'd be on that inspector and/or his supervisor, if he simply mentioned something needs done there before it is all done I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

X2.

Jap>
 
I dont see a problem.. couple minutes with a multi tool and a diamond blade, then a few more minutes with a file tile... biggest headache to me is getting the plastic extension ring to fit in for the thickness of the tiles... place the item on top and seal it.. done...
 
Adamjamma said:
I dont see a problem.. couple minutes with a multi tool and a diamond blade, then a few more minutes with a file tile... biggest headache to me is getting the plastic extension ring to fit in for the thickness of the tiles... place the item on top and seal it.. done...
Click to expand...

All minutes I don't have to waste doing tile work.

I put the mud ring on before the tile layers ever even get there.

JAP>
 
Adamjamma said:
I dont see a problem.. couple minutes with a multi tool and a diamond blade, then a few more minutes with a file tile... biggest headache to me is getting the plastic extension ring to fit in for the thickness of the tiles... place the item on top and seal it.. done...
Click to expand...

Especially when you count the time to locate and set up these tools, the real problem is WHO is responsible to fix it. And the angled installation resulting.
 
kwired said:
It *might be* a violation, we haven't clarified exactly what we have here. It certainly isn't something holding up the final inspection as far as we know at this point. If it is the final inspection where is the emergency light that is supposed to be there?

Nothing wrong with mentioning that something needs to change there before the light gets installed if this was just an observation at this point in the process.

If I received a written correction notice for this when it wasn't the final inspection, I'd be on that inspector and/or his supervisor, if he simply mentioned something needs done there before it is all done I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...
I still don't know where or why the semantics of when a non-compliance constitutes a violation came into this, other than the moving-target debate tactic I'm witnessing in this thread.
 
Adamjamma said:
I dont see a problem.. couple minutes with a multi tool and a diamond blade, then a few more minutes with a file tile... biggest headache to me is getting the plastic extension ring to fit in for the thickness of the tiles... place the item on top and seal it.. done...
Click to expand...

1. If this was a union job, the electrician wouldn't touch the tile. A tile contractor would have to be called out to correct the tile. Time and money lost.

2. If a non-union job, the GC has to get someone to come back to correct the tile. His electrical subcontractor may or may not have the tools or be willing to risk damage to the tile. Either way, regardless of who does the work, the tradesmen and the tools are not there and someone has to do the work that could have been done in about 2 minutes of dry-fit measuring and cutting on the wet saw that was set up there for the job. Time and money lost.

3. Even forgetting all this, the time the GC or foreman has to spend dealing with this stupid issue is taking him away from more productive work. Time and money lost.

4. Just the fact that the tile and box heights were not taken into consideration, whether in the original plans or on-site while laying out for tile, calls out a potential problem with the job coordination, communication, and follow up. The tile could have had a bullnose picture-framed around the top of the device area to level the mounting surface. The tile could have been set lower or higher to remove this awkward treatment entirely. The box possibly could have been set to fit at the tile height, but this particular job looks as though the box is existing old work, and there also can be code requirements mandating height.

Some stuff is way more than it first appears, or can snowball into a bigger problem.
 
This whole time the blame has been put on the tile layer and or the electrician.

In the end, It's actually the fault of the owner (who is also the inspector) or, his design team for approving a set of drawings that indicated the final height of the tile being the same height as the center line of the box roughed in for the emergency light.

If the tile layer did his job per the plans, he's not going to want to carve out the tile around the box if that's actually the height the owner wants.

And,

If the electrician roughed in the box at the correct height per the plans and the tile is incorrect, there's no need for him to move his box either.

Maybe the Owner/Inspector should receive a violation of impracticality from the electrician and the tile layer.

As it stands now, if he actually is the owner, it seems he's flagging people for his own mistakes.

Either move the box, or, lay another row of tile and be done with it.

Don't go citing code violations for your design when it doesn't work out.



JAP>
 
Craigv said:
Time and money lost.
Time and money lost.
Time and money lost.

The tile could have had a bullnose picture-framed around the top of the device area to level the mounting surface. The tile could have been set lower or higher to remove this awkward treatment entirely. The box possibly could have been set to fit at the tile height, but this particular job looks as though the box is existing old work, and there also can be code requirements mandating height.
Click to expand...

All valid solutions, but, this post is not about how to fix the problem.
That's easy.

This post is about a violation being given of the wiring in the box being somehow rendered inaccessible.

Every time a post is made on this site it's "Time and money lost" for somebody somewhere in one way or another.

JAP>
 
75 replies just like how many it will take to get someone to fix the problem, see why you don't fix things on your own?
 
jap said:
All valid solutions, but, this post is not about how to fix the problem.
That's easy.

This post is about a violation being given of the wiring in the box being somehow rendered inaccessible.

Every time a post is made on this site it's "Time and money lost" for somebody somewhere in one way or another.

JAP>
Click to expand...

The thread *was* a question about whether 314.29 was violated. The OP stated he had worked out a solution by post #9. Since then we've just been shooting the breeze about our opinions on how lame a tile setter's work was.
 
Craigv said:
The thread *was* a question about whether 314.29 was violated. The OP stated he had worked out a solution by post #9. Since then we've just been shooting the breeze about our opinions on how lame a tile setter's work was.
Click to expand...

Better go back and read the first post.

He didn't ask if it was a violation, he tagged it as a violation then was looking for someone to agree with him.

Plus, don't say "we". I can only think of one person that actually called the tile layer lame.

Which is what personally rubbed me wrong Spstarting at about post #13.

We don't know the situation well enough to be making comments like that.

Jap>
 
jap said:
This whole time the blame has been put on the tile layer and or the electrician.

In the end, It's actually the fault of the owner (who is also the inspector) or, his design team for approving a set of drawings that indicated the final height of the tile being the same height as the center line of the box roughed in for the emergency light.

If the tile layer did his job per the plans, he's not going to want to carve out the tile around the box if that's actually the height the owner wants.

And,

If the electrician roughed in the box at the correct height per the plans and the tile is incorrect, there's no need for him to move his box either.

Maybe the Owner/Inspector should receive a violation of impracticality from the electrician and the tile layer.

As it stands now, if he actually is the owner, it seems he's flagging people for his own mistakes.

Either move the box, or, lay another row of tile and be done with it.

Don't go citing code violations for your design when it doesn't work out.



JAP>
Click to expand...
If owner (or even a GC) is the one wanting something changed - then yes to some extent it might be his own fault for not coordinating different trades to the same final outcome. I have worked for some of those owners before and everything they don't like is someone else's fault. This happens on those build on the fly projects pretty easily or with poorly made plans.
 
jap said:
Better go back and read the first post.

He didn't ask if it was a violation, he tagged it as a violation then was looking for someone to agree with him.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's...

xguard said:
This is a 4x4 box partially covered by a piece of tile. This box is intended for an emergency light. I tagged this as a violation of 314.29. The installer claims it is not in violation as he can reach the wiring. To me that's ridiculous but as my wife reminds me I've been wrong once or twice before. Please let me know what you think. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I see him asking for opinions and admitting he's been wrong before. You're reading inferences into this, as he clearly was not looking for agreement, just our opinions.

jap said:
Plus, don't say "we". I can only think of one person that actually called the tile layer lame.
Click to expand...

Since you've gone to the point of being obtuse about the semantics of this, let's first note that I never called the tile setter lame. I called the work amateurish, unprofessional, and DIY. I never wrote any personal comments.

And to continue with the semantic nonsense, you seem to think the tile work is fine. As in "not lame". That is a degree of lameness, so how lame the work was is exactly what WE have been wasting time arguing about. So....."we" applies.


jap said:
Which is what personally rubbed me wrong Spstarting at about post #13.
Click to expand...
Apparently I really got your shorts twisted. Wasn't my intention, and still isn't. Why do you get so wound up over the personal opinions of people you don't know in a web forum? Let's have a beer and talk about how the Yankees and Red Sox are in the postseason.


jap said:
We don't know the situation well enough to be making comments like that.

Jap>
Click to expand...

I do. I see tile over a box. I read that the installer saw no violation and argue the point to where the OP felt compelled to ask us about it. That is unprofessional work and not the way to handle a customer, but the installer finally saw reason and worked it out with the OP.

THE END
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top