residential garage

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mhayes

Member
a local inspector is requiring we wire a unattached open framed residential garage with mc cable instead of nm cable and only siting article 334 as the reason. Is this correct?
 
I do not believe he is correct. Every where else in the code considers a detached garage part of the dwelling unit. Why would 334 be any different? What is the difference between an attached and detached garage? Just for info. I did get an informal opinion from the NFPA on this years ago and they consider any structures associated with a dwelling unit to be part of that dwelling unit. (within reason of course) This would also apply to apartment complexes. The NFPA opinion would allow the clubhouse of the apartment unit to be wired in NM cable without the 15 minute finish rating.
 
Jim Shorts said:
I do not believe he is correct. Every where else in the code considers a detached garage part of the dwelling unit. Why would 334 be any different? What is the difference between an attached and detached garage? Just for info. I did get an informal opinion from the NFPA on this years ago and they consider any structures associated with a dwelling unit to be part of that dwelling unit. (within reason of course) This would also apply to apartment complexes. The NFPA opinion would allow the clubhouse of the apartment unit to be wired in NM cable without the 15 minute finish rating.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this. The code never ASSUMES a detached garage to be a dwelling unit.
 
honestly, why would you want to install nm exposed in a garage/workshop anyway? very ugly and unprofessional even if it was allowed.....MC in that application wouldn't increase the cost by much.
 
I would consider a detached garage as an accessory building to a dwelling unit and apply 334.10(A) which permits NM cable to be exposed in normally dry locations. This will raise the question of protection against physical damage as found in 300.4. Subsection (A) of 300.4 seems to imply that cables run through framing members with not portion of the cable closer to the nearest edge at less than 1 1/4" is protected from physical damage. I think this arguement will go on for ever along with ground lug up or down. This is how I would inspect in this area of Indiana but am looking forward to others responces.
 
a detached garage is no more part of a dwelling unit than a doghouse is, or say a small business mechanic shop in the back yard, or a beauty parlor in the back yard. if it were "part " of the dwelling it would be connected to the dwelling. your example of the clubhouse IMHO was in violation, unless it included provisions for cooking, sleeping, sanitation, & living
 
I would consider a detached garage as an accessory building to a dwelling unit and apply 334.10(A) which permits NM cable to be exposed in normally dry locations.
Click to expand...

But 334.10(A)(1) goes on to say unless prohibited by 334.10(3) which would prohibit exposed NM cable in other structures permitted to be of type III, IV or V constuction.

Since 334.10(1) and (2) are for one and two family dwellings and multifamily dwellings respectively and those sections only talk about dwellings not accessory buildings to dwellings then a detached garage would fall under 334.10(3).

Chris
 
Last edited:
inspector 102 said:
I would consider a detached garage as an accessory building to a dwelling unit and apply 334.10(A) which permits NM cable to be exposed in normally dry locations. This will raise the question of protection against physical damage as found in 300.4. Subsection (A) of 300.4 seems to imply that cables run through framing members with not portion of the cable closer to the nearest edge at less than 1 1/4" is protected from physical damage. I think this arguement will go on for ever along with ground lug up or down. This is how I would inspect in this area of Indiana but am looking forward to others responces.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see your arguement coming full circle. Which is to say, ok you consider it an accessory building but where does accessory building fall in 334.10 (1),(2),or (3)..... look at the language...

(A) Types NM, NMC, and NMS. ​
​
​
​
​
Types NM, NMC, and
NMS cables shall not be permitted as follows:
(1) In any dwelling or structure not specifically permitted​

in 334.10(1), (2), and (3)
 
he could have cited the wrong code being exposed to physical damage is is going to be hard to argue for you
 
mhayes said:
a local inspector is requiring we wire a unattached open framed residential garage with mc cable instead of nm cable and only siting article 334 as the reason. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

mhayes, it would be helpful to know your location. I very recently ( like a couple of minutes ago) learned that NJ has amended 334.10(1) to include the words "and accessory buildings or structures".
 
JES2727 said:
mhayes, it would be helpful to know your location. I very recently ( like a couple of minutes ago) learned that NJ has amended 334.10(1) to include the words "and accessory buildings or structures".
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that change. I see that someone has proposed it for 2011.
However due to an old ROP where the CMP stated UF is the perfered method in those situations I don't see it happening.
 
In NYS (and I suspect other states that use the IRC) we are governed by the Residential Code which references the 2002 NEC. But the RCNYS also states at R101.2 that the accessory structures are also part of the residential code. So this adds a little to making the arguement in support, but is it enough? :-?:smile:
 
scwirenut said:
you could just add provisions to cook and sleep
Click to expand...

In other words,.........get married, cause you'll be spending nights in the garage!
flute.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top