They may have meant that both could be connected but the article says "sign or outline lighting" not "sign and outline lighting". I think a clarification from the code panel is in order. If they meant "or" they should have wrote "either sign or outline lighting, but not both" to be very clear.
When English is used properly, it can be very specific and clear. Unfortunately, lots of people are unable to do that.
(Here's your chance to beat me up over any grammatical errors in the above.)
It's a language vs. logic conundrum. If it said for sign and outline lighting, you could interpret it as saying the circuit has to be used by both or not at all. IMO, the way it is worded permits one, the other, or both... but to be concise it should use "and/or".
"Outline lighting is an arrangement of incandescent lamps or electric-discharge lighting or other electrically powered light sources to outline or call attention to certain features, such as the shape of a building or the decoration of a window [Art. 100]."
Correct.
But before that as I highlighted in my last post it says "at least one" 20 amp branch circuit.... meaning there can be more then one if load dictates, but there must be at least one circuit dedicated to the loads mentioned.They may have meant that both could be connected but the article says "sign or outline lighting" not "sign and outline lighting". I think a clarification from the code panel is in order. If they meant "or" they should have wrote "either sign or outline lighting, but not both" to be very clear.
When English is used properly, it can be very specific and clear. Unfortunately, lots of people are unable to do that.
(Here's your chance to beat me up over any grammatical errors in the above.)
If arranged to accent or highlight building features why not? If arranged only to be general lighting no. I think you can have instances where the lighting covers both purposes and then would be allowed on this required circuit. Again more then one circuit is allowed if load dictates so.
Yes, but inspectors are human and sometimes wrong also. If you feel their interpretation of something is wrong then discuss it with them, and give some good logic to support what you think is correct and not just "I want to do it this way". Unless they are stubborn and the "top dog" of the AHJ, you can always go over their head with your concerns. Many don't want to battle with an inspector and just do as they ask, and sometimes that is just the easiest way when their rejection of something might be holding up a project, so pick those battles accordingly, or if you still strongly enough they are wrong you may still do what they ask for the current project and still continue with the challenge of setting them straight for the next time a similar circumstance comes up.
