ECN Forum
Posted By: renosteinke A House that Confounds the Code - 12/02/09 11:00 PM
I was looking at a home in Florida, and the arrangement seems to confound the NEC in two ways.

The otherwise unremarkable house is located on a canal. It has an enclosed pool in the back, between the house and the canal. Let's look at two pictures:

[Linked Image from electrical-photos.com]
This is the pool. The house forms the wall on the right, and the screen wall to the left sits atop the seawall.

We've discussed 'sunrooms' before, and formed the opinion that they were 'habitable,' and thus needed receptacles. Yet, in this example, most any receptacle would be within the six foot (?) 'forbidden' zone around the pool. So the question is: to have a receptacle or not?

[Linked Image from electrical-photos.com]
Here is the view from the other side of that screen wall. What's not clear is that I'm literally standing on the water's edge; that cement block wall is the sea wall. While the NEC requires a receptacle in the rear of this house ... are we sure we want one on that sea wall?
Personally, I would look at the code specification of 'accessible from grade level,' and argue that there is NO 'grade level,' that the areas beyond the sea wall are below grade.

What do you say?
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/03/09 12:52 AM
Reno:
Are you saying that the concrete that the carpet and hoses are laying on is not a 'patio'?

The 'patio' (cement) IMHO is grade, based on how I see the pic.

This is right up Greg's alley!


Posted By: gfretwell Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/03/09 02:06 AM
That is not a sun room, it is a screened pool enclosure and the pool rules take precedence over 210.52. It will also show up differently on the tax appraiser plot plan.
I would expect the receptacle serving the rear of the house to be outside the enclosure somewhere. That block wall is not really a "sea wall" it is just a retaining wall to hold the box of dirt the house sits on. You notice the hose bib is in it.
This must be an old pool. I doubt you could build that today and you certainly would need to relocate the door handle on the cage door. (53" min height).
The door has to open "out"
I would also want to know if the windows are tempered glass and are the frames bonded. Is the cage bonded?
Where is the 36" of clear walkway behind the pool?
The strange thing is the screen cage seems fairly new, based on the cable anchor and the size of the roof members.
It is possible it was inspected by a structural inspector who doesn't understand pool rules (or unpermitted).
Pool finals are usually done by the electrical inspector, strange as that seems.

Posted By: HotLine1 Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/03/09 03:23 AM
Greg:
A receptacle on the retaining wall would work? Of course, it would be TR/WR/GFI protected and live in a really nice bubble cover!

Thanks for your input on Reno's pics.

Posted By: gfretwell Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/03/09 03:25 AM
My wife says, code wise, the screen cage is after Andrew and before Charlie. 1992-2004. I am guessing 130mph wind code area.
[Linked Image from gfretwell.com]

If this is SE Florida (Miami/Dade) that may never have met code.
Posted By: leland Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/03/09 05:11 AM
#1 We must determine the install date of the structure and accessories..

With out that we are all just blowing wind.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/03/09 07:10 AM
The real question at this point is how you would get a wire out there. I would seriously consider just going on the side of the house, near the rear or in the outside wall of the screen enclosure kick panel. A lot of time I see EMT strapped to these enclosures for things like this.
In fact I am using EMT for the overhead lights in my pool cage but it is 14' tall. My outside receptacles are on the corners, attached right to the cage. I was able to get the raceways underground before the cage was built for these so it is cleaner than strapping EMT to the wall. At my FIL's house we ran them right along the joint at the base so it isn't totally ugly.
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/04/09 02:38 AM
Greg:

Any reason for EMT, as opposed to PVC with all that water?

Posted By: gfretwell Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/04/09 03:18 AM
I used PVC in the ground but EMT on the cage itself, above ground. It just looks better and doesn't sag.
Some of the bending was tricky but that is half the fun wink

The other thing was I shot it all with medium bronze paint after it was bent but before I put it up, for additional corrosion protection and so it blends with the cage material. I was very happy with the way it came out. I have 15 H-101 style lamp holders around the pool with 15w sign bulbs in them. It makes a real nice light level without that "stallag 17" look. There are also 2 underwater lights on dimmers. I also have some PAR 38s on a separate circuit for when the kids are here and we want it bright.
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/05/09 01:55 AM
Greg:
I totally agree with you about the 'sag' with PVC. As to your efforts, that's the sign of a craftsman! I guess if the HO's that live along the water here were willing to pony-up the $$$ for a 'matching' paint job, there would be more EMT.

I have 3/4 Sch 80 exposed in limited locations. Next project...EMT and paint.

Posted By: renosteinke Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/10/09 03:50 PM
OK, the owners have made their sale, and are willing to let me share some information about this house:

Location is Port Richey, Fla. The house was built in 1976, with the pool and screen room added in 1982.

Since the pictures were taken, the screen room and roof over the pool have been removed. The pool remains.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/10/09 06:43 PM
I had the approximate latitude right ;-)
You can tell a lot by the palms people choose.

I am surprised by the date of the screen cage. That was a very substantial construction for a "pre-Andrew" screen cage.
The cable anchors in those days was usually just an eye bolt. Roof members were usually 2x4 and those looked like 2x6. Now it is 2x8.

Why did they take the screen cage down? That will increase their pool maintenance, not to mention the bug issue. There will be a real sticker shock if they decide they want a new one.
Posted By: renosteinke Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/10/09 09:29 PM
The home was bought, and remodeled, specifically for the purpose of resale. The 'flipper' thought that the screen house required far too much repair, and was ugly as well. They also assert that it's not necessary as they don't have a 'bug problem' there.

Having been stuck with this house for three years, they were absolutely horrified to find I had posted pics here - fearing that there would be some last-minute problem with the sale.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: A House that Confounds the Code - 12/10/09 11:32 PM
The other problem, beyond the bugs, is going to be the trees. That queen palm next to the pool will be dropping all sorts of stuff in the pool. They have the $40 trim on it in that picture but when it grows out it will have a 5 foot long flower pod or two that drop little yellow flowers everywhere. Later it will be dropping marble sized nuts.
© ECN Electrical Forums