# panel in cloths closet



## Rick18071 (Mar 25, 2011)

House was built at local tech school and moved to a new site. Permit only for foundation, steps, and service since it is an existing house. New service goes to a existing panel in a 24"x24" cloths closet. We are debating if we can fail existing panel in the closet.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 25, 2011)

Who approved it when they built it at the tech school?

If it's wrong, then it's wrong.


----------



## mjesse (Mar 25, 2011)

2006 IRC

E3305.4 Location of working spaces and equipment.

Required working space shall not be designated for storage. Panelboards and overcurrent protection devices shall not be located in clothes closets or bathrooms.

mj


----------



## brudgers (Mar 25, 2011)

It's not a clothes closet, it's an electrical room.


----------



## rshuey (Mar 25, 2011)

I agree with the others. Fix it now, before they have a problem later.


----------



## steveray (Mar 25, 2011)

Working clearance?  I think they could get around the storage thing with a sign...don't like it...but could.....working clearance is assumedly NG though...


----------



## permitguy (Mar 25, 2011)

Would you let them put "no sleeping" signs in all the bedrooms so they didn't have to install smokes?


----------



## north star (Mar 25, 2011)

** * * **

Rick18071,

Was the house constructed at the local tech school, issued a C. of O.?

If not, then it is not a legally recognized SFD. It would need to be inspected &

approved to the standards under which it was constructed, and approved by

the AHJ in which it is installed.

If that AHJ determines it is a Property Maintenance issue, then Section 604.3

[ might ] apply.....From the 2006 IPMC,....*Section 604.3 - "**Electrical system hazards.*

*Where it is found that the electrical system in a structure constitutes a hazard*

*to the occupants or the structure by reason of inadequate service, improper*

*fusing, insufficient receptacle and lighting outlets, improper wiring or installation,*

*deterioration or damage, or for similar reasons, the code official shall require*

*the defects to be corrected to eliminate the hazard."*

It sounds as though they need to move the panel.

Also, I do not believe that signage would satisfy the intent or the letter for the

safety of the occupants.....That would also let the Tech school off the hook!

*& & & &*


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 25, 2011)

It looks the students will be learning one of the hard lessons of life.


----------



## GHRoberts (Mar 25, 2011)

It appears the clearance issue is the only thing one should object to. 24"x24" seems a bit small for a clothes closet. Perhaps a utility closet for brooms and such is a better description.

How big is the door?


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 25, 2011)

Wouldn't be considered existing in my neck of the woods...probably wouldn't approve the service until the panel gets moved.


----------



## FredK (Mar 25, 2011)

Turn the panel around.  Then it's in the living room, etc.....  But that may work.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 25, 2011)

Nail 'em with 110.26 of the NEC.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 26, 2011)

Structure move, must comply with the requirements of the current adopted code.


----------



## fiddler (Mar 26, 2011)

If the panel is centered with and facing the door opening and there are no shelves or rods it is legal I do believe.


----------



## docgj (Mar 27, 2011)

fiddler,

How would you get the 30 inch wide clearance in a 24 inch wide closet?


----------



## peach (Mar 27, 2011)

that would be my point docgj...


----------



## fatboy (Mar 27, 2011)

yup........


----------



## steveray (Mar 28, 2011)

PG.....

   How do you or the building code, define a bedroom? If it says study on the plans, is it a bedroom? If it says electrical room on the plans, is it a closet? I am not saying I like it, and I certainly don't encourage it, but if it had the working clearance, I think I would have to approve it....


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 28, 2011)

I don't think the house had any kind of inspection before it was moved. Most houses do not have C.O.'s in PA since we only started to have codes in 2004. So if a house is being moved we only gave a permit and did inspections for the foundation and anything else being done but not for the house itself. I don't know when this house was built at the tech school. The permit was issued 3 years ago by someone that doesn't work here anymore and I only been here for 6 months.


----------



## north star (Mar 28, 2011)

*$ $ $ $*

Rick18071,

Thanks for the update of info!.....Will your dept. be issuing a C. of O. for 

this house?

If the location of the existing panelboard is a true closet, ...I am assuming that

your AHJ will want it to be moved to a compliant location.......One possibility for

this might be,....remove everything from the elec. panelboard in its existing location.

Install a very large junction box and make compliant connections with the existing

conductors and run new conductors to a new, compliant location.....Leave the cover

to the very large junction box accessible and you should be good to go......A 2nd

option would be to remove some of the framed element to be able to comply

Article 110.26.

*$ $ $ $*


----------



## doyt (Mar 28, 2011)

The phrase "such as in clothes closets" was added to Section 240.24(d) in the 1981 Edition of the NEC.  Prior to that it was permissible to have overcurrent protection located in clothes closets as long as it was not in "the vicinity of easily ignitable material".  So basically it was up to the inspector to determine if the location was acceptable or not.

The 1940 Edition of the NEC Article 110 Section 1111 Working Space About Electrical Equipment" states in part "the horizontal dimensions of the working space in front of live parts ...shall not be less than: (3) For parts of 150 volts or less to ground on one side of the working space and no bare live or grounded parts on the other side of the working space, 1 1/2 feet"

I am not sure when this requirement was increased to the current 30" width for working space.  But it would seem, depending on the age of the dwelling being moved, this may have been a perfectly acceptable installation.

As to whether or not the moving of the building would require the relocation of the panel or not that is another question.  If they are replacing the panel then I would say that it would have to be located in a current code conforming location.  If they are only reattaching the service drop to an existing installation, I'm afraid you may have to live with it.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 28, 2011)

> How do you or the building code, define a bedroom? If it says study on the plans, is it a bedroom? If it says electrical room on the plans, is it a closet? I am not saying I like it, and I certainly don't encourage it, but if it had the working clearance, I think I would have to approve it....


First, I go by what the plans say.  Then, I apply common sense based on years of experience with thousands upon thousands of homes and the knowledge that the average American moves every 7 years.  I stand my ground until someone with more authority tells me I'm wrong (doesn't happen often), then I sleep well at night knowing I did everything I could.  It's simple, really.


----------



## steveray (Mar 28, 2011)

I wish we had that kind of support from above here.......we document as well as we can and if it is in writing, that is all we are allowed to do...we can't regulate what someone might do...


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 1, 2011)

We will not be issuing a c.o. for the whole house, only the basement. We will approve this service if they install a disconnect outside or in the basement. The panel in the closet is to far from the meter anyway. I just hope all the student electricians from this tech school won't be doing this.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 1, 2011)

So they can only occupy the basement?

What would a disconnect outside have to do with the fact that they have overcurrent protection devices installed in a clothes closet?


----------



## steveray (Apr 1, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> So they can only occupy the basement?What would a disconnect outside have to do with the fact that they have overcurrent protection devices installed in a clothes closet?


They probably ran 20' of 3 wire inside the building with no protection......to the "existing" panel.....


----------



## permitguy (Apr 1, 2011)

Okay, but a disconnect outside still leaves ocpds in the closet.


----------



## fiddler (Apr 3, 2011)

oops fixated on the width of equip. and forgot the 30"


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 4, 2011)

Not inspecting existing house. Permit only for basement, elec. service, and outside steps. Existing house that was moved might have been built before we had codes here and if they are not doing anything in the existing house I can not make them get a permit for doing nothing or an inspection. If I could I would have to make them tear off the drywall to inspect. I have done service inspections on mobile homes that were moved that have panels in closets. I don't make them move the panel, would you?


----------



## north star (Apr 4, 2011)

*^ ^ ^ ^*

Rick18071,

The C. of O. applies to the whole house, not just the basement,

elec. service & steps.

Yes, I would lobby for moving the electrical panel out of the closet,

or make the location where it is currently located "NOT" a closet!

Access to the ocpd's is as important as the combustibles located

near the panel too, ...IMO!

The AHJ Fire Authority could cite Section 102.1 [ from the `06 IFC ]:

*102.1 Construction and design provisions. *

*The construction and design provisions of this code shall apply to:*

*1. Structures, facilities and conditions arising after the adoption of*

*this code.*

*2. Existing structures, facilities and conditions not legally in*

*existence at the time of adoption of this code.*

*3. Existing structures, facilities and conditions when identified in*

*specific sections of this code.*

*4. Existing structures, facilities and conditions which, in the opinion*

*of the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life or*

*property.*

*^ ^ ^ ^*


----------



## steveray (Apr 4, 2011)

Here, moved structures have to meet code....prefabs or mobile homes have their own 3rd party certifications...we do inspect the foundations and connections per manuf. specs...


----------



## permitguy (Apr 4, 2011)

> Existing house that was moved might have been built before we had codes here and if they are not doing anything in the existing house I can not make them get a permit for doing nothing or an inspection.


They aren't doing "nothing."  They are moving a house into your jurisdiction, where a building code is in effect.  This isn't a manufactured home which was subjected to quality control inspections in a factory.  Not only can you require a permit and inspections, but it is your responsibility to do so.  Of the "feasances," nonfeasance is the worst.



> If I could I would have to make them tear off the drywall to inspect.


You have to do what a reasonable and prudent person with your level of training and expertise would do.  Inspect everything you can see, and require removal of drywall in certain places to inspect what you normally would have.  That will allow you to reasonably gauge the overall compliance of the work.  If it looks bad, then they uncover everything.  Sometimes this job requires us to do things we wish it didn't.


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 5, 2011)

2X4 walls will not pass insulation requirements. I won't sign off on things I can't see. Like for a 2nd floor addition I only C. O. the 2nd floor addition, not the whole house.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 5, 2011)

Insulation?  Seriously?

I'm not saying that the entire place has to be in accordance with the latest and greatest, but it's your responsiblity to ensure it is safe to the extent that is practical.  Failure to do so puts you (personally) and your jurisdiction at risk.  Based on your current logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for a builder to construct homes on a flatbed semi just outside your boundary, then move them in and place them with no oversight except the foundation and the utilities.

A 2nd floor addition isn't a like comparison.  The first floor should have already been inspected and approved.  Regardless, you should have an engineer's report regarding the ability of the existing structure to support the addition.


----------



## steveray (Apr 5, 2011)

"Regardless, you should have an engineer's report regarding the ability of the existing structure to support the addition."

Engineers report?.....for a SFD?.....I wish.....unless there is some creative framing, everything we need to verify the structure is already in the IRC...

 3408.1 Conformance.

Structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for *new structures. *

Good luck with the IECC on that one!


----------



## permitguy (Apr 5, 2011)

> Engineers report?.....for a SFD?.....I wish.....unless there is some creative framing, everything we need to verify the structure is already in the IRC...


I fear we're taking this thread way off-topic, but if you have the staff to hand-hold a typical homeowner through the necessary steps to design a second floor addition on an existing single story residence, you're better off than most departments.  I can't remember the last time I saw a home without at least one engineered component.



> 3408.1 Conformance. Structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new structures.


Wrong code for this example.


----------



## steveray (Apr 5, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I fear we're taking this thread way off-topic, but if you have the staff to hand-hold a typical homeowner through the necessary steps to design a second floor addition on an existing single story residence, you're better off than most departments.  I can't remember the last time I saw a home without at least one engineered component.Wrong code for this example.


R101.2 Scope.

The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures.

Exception: Existing buildings undergoing repair, alteration or additions, and change of occupancy shall be permitted to comply with the International Existing Building Code.

We have a choice between Chapter 34 or the IEBC


----------



## permitguy (Apr 5, 2011)

Where do you see IBC Chapter 34 in that equation?

Verifying compliance of the moved structure to the extent technically feasible within the IRC would be a much more appropriate course of action then doing nothing, which is what is being proposed.  If you wanted to take a hard line and disallow moved structures that don't comply with energy regulations, I suppose you could.  It seems a bit overboard to me.


----------



## steveray (Apr 5, 2011)

Here in CT the applicant has a choice between IBC 34 or IEBC  .....34 says treat it like new....ALL of it....we don't get to pick and coose what code sections want to enforce...

Fin...


----------



## permitguy (Apr 5, 2011)

I guess they'd be wise to choose the IEBC, which basically says "make sure it's safe for human occupancy."


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 5, 2011)

I had to permit and inspect a foundation for a moved 120 year old house. Nothing in the house would have passed code. What would you do?


----------



## permitguy (Apr 5, 2011)

> You have to do what a reasonable and prudent person with your level of training and expertise would do. Inspect everything you can see, and require removal of drywall in certain places to inspect what you normally would have. That will allow you to reasonably gauge the overall compliance of the work. If it looks bad, then they uncover everything.


From the above statement, I guess I'd replace "drywall" with "plaster and lath."  Other than that, it would be the same.  You'd probably find that a 120 year-old house that's still worth moving was built with much more care than anything built today.  If you see something you're uncomfortable with (2x4 rafters 24" O.C.), you could require an engineer's evaluation for the permit file or have them add a purlin and struts (for example).

Document, document, document.  If you act in good faith, have documented, and can justify your position, you'll be fine.  If you do nothing and something goes wrong, those harmed may own _your _house.


----------



## globe trekker (Apr 5, 2011)

From Appendix "J", `06 IRC - Existing Buildings and Structures:

*SECTION AJ102 COMPLIANCE - AJ102.1 General. *

"Regardless of the category of work being performed, the work shall

not cause the structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the

performance of the building; shall not cause an existing mechanical or

plumbing system to become unsafe, hazardous, insanitary or overloaded;

and unless expressly permitted by these provisions, shall not make the

building any less conforming to this code or to any previously approved

alternative arrangements than it was before the work was undertaken."

Hope this helps!

.


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 6, 2011)

PA does not use appendix J or chapter 1 of IRC


----------



## permitguy (Apr 6, 2011)

Most don't, but I'm sure there is a similar replacement with regards to the scope and intent of the code and the duties of building officials.


----------

