• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Expired in 1968

ICE

ICE

Oh Well
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
12,913
Location
California
There is an expired pool permit dated 1968. Now a bank owns the property and has taken out a new permit to legalize and final the expired permit. Some in my office have suggested that I am required to follow the 1968 code. It was further suggested that I should require a report from a pool service company that states that everything is safe as it is. I don't agree and will apply the current code. This may be problematic in that the 1968 code probably didn't include the requirement for an equipotential bonding grid.

The place was locked up when I got there and all I could do was look over the fence. There is a bootleg aluminum patio cover and a bootleg building (with electrical power) on the right. I wrote a correction to obtain a building permit for the patio cover and building. I also requested an electrical permit and noted that there will be strict adherence to article 680. Of course, a licensed electrical contractor shall be required. My guess is that the patio cover and out-building will go away as soon as the bank learns of the cost involved.

DSCN2708.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once a permit is expired, you may require the owner to begin the permit process from the beginning (existing code, not 1968) and pay all of the applicable fees.
 
mark handler said:
Once a permit is expired, you may require the owner to begin the permit process from the beginning (existing code, not 1968) and pay all of the applicable fees.
Click to expand...
We could but we hardly ever do. If we had done that on this one, the permit fee alone would be $650 and the other fees such as planning approval would push this over $2000. We're doing this one for $225 out the door. Well there is going to be more permits if they try to keep the patio cover and out-building plus the electrical permit but if those problems hadn't come up, they would be getting a good deal.

As far as the code cycle to be implemented, that depends on the situation. A room addition for example might get today's code for the electrical and the code in effect at the time of construction for the building code. The effort is to legalize the construction and to be as safe as is practical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chris kennedy said:
How would you verify compliance with 680.26?
Click to expand...
The old fashioned way. It is what it is so they will be busting into concrete. They will have the opportunity to relocate the equipment back to it's original location too.
 
ICE said:
It is what it is so they will be busting into concrete.
Click to expand...
I have in the past had questionable bonding grids megged by an engineering firm. Would you find that acceptable?

FWIW, 680.26 first appeared in the NEC in 62 and required a bonding conductor 14 or larger connected to the panel serving the pool equipments EG bus. Next time your there it would be interesting to look in that panel and see what you have.
 
"I have in the past had questionable bonding grids megged by an engineering firm. Would you find that acceptable?"

Yes, I would.
 
chris kennedy said:
I have in the past had questionable bonding grids megged by an engineering firm. Would you find that acceptable? FWIW, 680.26 first appeared in the NEC in 62 and required a bonding conductor 14 or larger connected to the panel serving the pool equipments EG bus. Next time your there it would be interesting to look in that panel and see what you have.
Click to expand...
Would a megger be able to establish that the various components of the bonding grid are bonded with a low impedance path? I don't know enough about the test. I imagine that each component must be exposed for the test so destruction is present. It could get ugly for this pool with today's code and the 3' perimeter, water bond, etc. I will have a talk with our engineer and see if we have any middle ground. I'll ask about the megger test too. As a side note I have seen megger testing on insulation after fires.

Given that the pool is 44 years old, it's on it's fourth or fifth set of equipment. The equipment is located too close to a side yard setback and should be moved. Fence and gate is way off code.

Ya never know what a bank will do next. I might find the patio cover and out-building in the pool.....problem solved.
 
chris kennedy said:
I have in the past had questionable bonding grids megged by an engineering firm. Would you find that acceptable? FWIW, 680.26 first appeared in the NEC in 62 and required a bonding conductor 14 or larger connected to the panel serving the pool equipments EG bus. Next time your there it would be interesting to look in that panel and see what you have.
Click to expand...
Did the '62 code state what items shall be bonded to the panel EG bus? It must not have been a serious effort with just a #14 required. Did the code stipulate solid or stranded, insulated or bare? I will most likely find nothing so it's good to know that there was a requirement no matter how inadequate it seems in light of the present code.
 
480sparky said:
1962 NEC:
19626808.jpg
Click to expand...
Thanks. My AHJ is bound to have a copy of the '62 code so on Tuesday I'll get the rest of the story from 680-7. It appears as though the equipotential bonding grid hadn't emerged in 1962 but the code was headed in that direction. The main office is closed on Friday's and wouldn't you know, I get a lot of questions on Friday.
 
Clerical error?

Might I suggest that the final inspection paperwork never made it into the file?
 
brudgers said:
Might I suggest that the final inspection paperwork never made it into the file?
Click to expand...
The original permit is in the file. It was officially expired in 1968. All is approved except the final inspection, which would be a good sign were this not a swimming pool. A lot happens in a back yard in 44 years. It's altogether possible that the only thing about this pool that's original is the location.

Some permits should not be allowed to expire and swimming pools is one of them. Now in 2012 a building dept. is being asked to legalize a pool that was built under an electrical code that has evolved to be radically different in 44 years. The pool has functioned all these years without mishap but this is a case where time is not on their side. It has stood the test of time but it is just all that much closer to being worn out. There is conduit and conductors that have been buried for 44 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
The original permit is in the file. It was officially expired in 1968. All is approved except the final inspection, which would be a good sign were this not a swimming pool. A lot happens in a back yard in 44 years. It's altogether possible that the only thing about this pool that's original is the location. Some permits should not be allowed to expire and swimming pools is one of them. Now in 2012 a building dept. is being asked to legalize a pool that was built under an electrical code that has evolved to be radically different in 44 years. The pool has functioned all these years without mishap but this is a case where time is not on their side. It has stood the test of time but it is just all that much closer to being worn out. There is conduit and conductors that have been buried for 44 years.
Click to expand...
If the final had been done, none of those things would change.
 
brudgers said:
If the final had been done, none of those things would change.
Click to expand...
A building dept. wouldn't be asked to do a final inspection 44 years after the fact.
 
The original permit is in the file. It was officially expired in 1968. We didn't lose anything other than good sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top