Remember…My thoughts on all subjects here are to HELP you think about the reason and the why…HI’s (and I am one or was anyway) would call it out simply as a safety concern to be aware of…Extension Cords, Potential to tip over due to the bar area, trip hazard potential and the like…you create the list…and as stated, let the buyer decide.
Now as the Municipal Inspector in me says… (that will always be in me…sorry)
Now move it out of the kitchen for my inspection…move it back when I leave…what ever…but municipal inspections are based on the “at the time of inspection” and we can’t help what people do after we leave. It is in the actual kitchen and it is a countertop to an island…Point, Set, Match !
Opinions being what they are…go ahead and say nothing about it and roll the dice. Seems like every HI’s worries about lawsuits down the road after an inspection…well here is a way to remove at least one potential concern…in my view anyway.
Very Nice…the only thing I would have added to that image was a little note on the receptacle to the left of the range. That space has the receptacle because it is at least 12" wide per Section 210.52(C)(1).
But other than that…from initial glance the image appears accurate.
FYI- There are a few more requirements for that range hood to be C & P…but it gets the jist.
I feel obligated to play the role of the lone devils advocate now… The “island” is actually a dining room table/piece designed to tie into the kitchen aesthetics as it creates a bordering edge between the two areas. Show me the code that says dining room furniture requires receptacles! Realistically the same arguments can be made of dining tables with respect to extension cords and safety for all the same reasons. I deal with rented furniture all the time and the stuff needs to be made safe for high paid actors to do whatever on and nothing tends to be nailed at locations. Not having something bolted or nailed doesn’t mean its not safe just like having nails doesn’t mean it is. A few finish nails might make a heavy island stay put somewhat, but with a little leverage can yank right out and tip over.
My criteria is this:
Homeowners or clients should know about and safety issues or options of receptacles in islands. Nailed down VS not, outlet vs no outlet. They can decide what they want.
As far as code goes, if the island is built ontop of a finished floor and is not nailed down or has some appliance or sink installed, then its furniture.
As far as inspectors go.
Yup, what Paul says. Been there done that. Just recently an office was made and plans were corrected to remove the majority of fixed counters to preserve design options. I know there are alot of people trying to create shortcuts and laziness should not be tolerated in contractors and I can respect why it could/would be a failed inspection.
Your DEVIL has no horns…I do not have to show you that since Section 210.52(C)(2) or the actual provision of (C) itself makes any such statement. The fact that it is a countertop located in the kitchen that meets the size criteria of an island dictates the requirement for a receptacle.
Now as with anything we have some calls we can make…if it was a table, like an old farm table with legs and not a cabinet then it could be moved anywhere so I would forgive the 210.52(C)(2) requirement out of simple reasoning…plus it moves easy without alot of effort…
Let’s stick STRICTLY to the images provided by the original poster…you have GOT to be kidding me if you think these are any way portable in nature when filled as any normal cabinet would be…honestly shoot that DEVIL already…:twisted:
In terms of rentals…this is a finished home with the island matching the existing cabinets in the home. We are not talking about renting a table and placing it in an “Existing” dwelling…right…we are discussing if a receptacle was required for these islands.
Clearly as we have stated the HI is not a CODE inspector so they will mention it, note it for liability purposes (lets not debate that, Call Joe Ferry)and move on. However, the argument now is about the intent of 210.52(C)(2) and these images. They smell like an island, as expressed in the NEC, they serve as countertop space in the kitchen, as expressed in the NEC…if it smells like an Island, used like an Island and provides countertop space like an island…it’s an Island…and if the argument is that it’s portable…move it out of the kitchen, get your inspection and move on.
I can tell you as a municipal inspector when I did permit this I always took a picture of the vacant space where there was no island so that if it was questioned later i would have proof. Yes, I had many of my municipal inspectors called into court by builders and home owners over lawsuits that the builders blamed on the inspector…the images always come in handy for my inspectors.
So at the end of the day…Call it as you wish…just be prepared to battle someone like me in a court of law as an expert witness…Im available;)
Honestly , maybe its because I do this kind of thing alot but it does not look at all difficult to move. In fact I was looking at the picture and in my head I was thinking of various configurations that can be used in that kitch. Triangle, clocking it, moving it out, moving it to the left.
What looks like unfinished floor to you looks like an unmopped dusty floor to me. A furniture pad or furniture dolly would work and I wouldnt mark the floors up doing it. In fact I bet I can do it on my own without any help
Edit: being filled is unfair. ANything loaded up can be a pain to move, it doesnt change the status of a furniture piece. Try moving my couch when Im planted on the thing, its just not happening MR.
So you are going to “unfill” it in order to move it?..hey it was your DEVIL…I just poked him;)
The problem is opinions get into play as in your case this is not an abnormal condition. However, the NEC is what it is…says what it says…to argue otherwise you have to convince the AHJ and in my experience teaching ALOT of AHJ’s…you would have a hard time convincing them…but obviously this AHJ saw it your way…lol…it must have passed inspection.
That’s how you moves shelves aint it? I deal in a world that can have monstrous heavy furniture. Concrete lamps/pedestals, coffee tables that weigh half a ton, Victorian beds that need a team of guys to move.
I get your points though. My mind goes to all kinds of scenarios and interesting designs that wont appreciate being tied to 210.52(C)(2) and rightfully so IMO despite heft and appearance.
Just remember however, it is like telling an inspector that you do not want a receptacle within 6’ of the door opening…because it’s my house and I don’t want one. The inspector will say…it’s code and what if you move and the next person wants one…
The reason we build homes to the minimum standards are for safety and uniformity , uniformity being in the eye of the beholder but never the less the layout of receptacles in accordance with the NEC adds uniformity and practical compliance.
I get it fella…but ask a 90 year old lady to move that “island” and see how easy it is. Again portability is also in the eye of the beholder…what is portable to a 25 year old is not always the same to a 65 year old.
As a Home Inspector, if you are not looking for or inspecting code issues…what are you looking for? The whole intent of the building code is “public safety, health, and general welfare”, and in most cases(FSS 455) that is the intent of home inspector licensing. One only needs to watch a few programs on TV to see the reputation we have as home inspectors, they think we are a bunch of bumbling fools…and we ALL share the reputation, like it or not. I use code directly in my reports, it certainly makes for a chuckle when licensed Contractors come behind me and give the buyer false information, even more so when it’s a building code official.
Paul, not to disagree with you in any way; but to you home inspectors out there, we are not there to enforce building code.
If it passes building code to not have a secured countertop island without an electrical outlet, it’s not your responsibility to “require it”.
It’s your responsibility to identify and record it.
The client gets to decide; you either secure the countertop to the building and add an electrical receptacle, Or you consider the added on island to be movable (regardless of what it takes to move it).
You cannot use Romex as an extension cord! So if the island can be moved and is not secured to the building, it is an extension cord!
The original post is a house with a concrete slab. Obviously someone either asked for the island to be installed afterwards or it was an oversight.
In Paul’s perspective, this obviously is a means to circumvent this situation. And I agree! However, do we really expect someone to Jack out the concrete slab and install electric to an island “after the fact”?
I believe that simply identifying the situation and allowing the powers that be to figure it all out!
Identifying the condition, explaining the circumstances and referring to current electrical standards should be sufficient for us as home inspectors.
Take your Barney Fife one bullet and badge and turn it into a news correspondent editorial-page and advise your client of the situation and let them decide.
I respectfully disagree, but do agree we are not there to “enforce” code. You are a licensed professional who is being paid for your professional opinion on the condition of a structure being purchased. If you are not willing to accept that role, home inspections is not for you. The purpose of code is specific, public safety, health, and general welfare. If you are not versed on these requirements, what are you versed in? Today’s code is tomorrow’s inspection, you are required to be continually educated just to keep your license…if you’re not learning code, what are you learning?
The issues of letting a client decide if a deficiency is important baffles me…YOU are the professional, what are they paying you for?
again, we can have a difference of opinion and be respectful.
I guess part of the question or answer is do you call it out as a code violation. Knowing it is a code infraction is one thing, but you may call it a safety violation.
The big problem, my background is electrical… so I know that. But do I know the gas, oil, building, plumbing, wood appliance codes to name a few off top of head…
Furthermore, you can not see the whole house, only what is visible so where does one stop if attempting to do code inspection.
Here is some info on a recent issue regarding an inspection - where they stated it was not a code inspection.
My mind goes to all kinds of scenarios and interesting designs that wont appreciate being tied to 210.52(C)(2) and rightfully so IMO despite heft and appearance.