Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troy board delays decision on homeowner’s wood-burning sauna heater after code debate
Summary
The Troy Zoning Board of Appeals postponed a decision on a homeowner’s request to keep an installed wood-burning sauna heater after inspectors said the unit lacks U.S.-recognized testing. The board gave the applicant one month to pursue an approved lab evaluation or an independent engineering comparison of European and U.S. standards.
The Troy Zoning Board of Appeals on June 3 postponed consideration of a variance request from 5268 Hale homeowner Steve Dickerson to allow a wood-burning Harvia/Harvey Allegent 150 sauna heater already installed in a detached accessory structure.
Dominic, a staff member who introduced the case, told the board the appliance failed final mechanical inspection because it is not listed to the U.S. standards cited in the Michigan Residential Code. Neil Simon, Troy’s mechanical inspector, told the board that the code requires sauna heaters be installed according to manufacturers’ instructions and that electric sauna heaters are covered by UL875 while solid-fuel room heaters are tested to UL1482. He said the unit on site carried a CE mark — a European declaration — which “is not recognized in the United States” and recommended evaluation by an approved U.S. testing body such as ICC Evaluation Service or a nationally recognized testing lab.
Homeowner Steve Dickerson told the board he built the sauna after an approved plan submission and said the installed wood-burning heater was tested to European standards for wood-burning sauna appliances (EN15821). "I respectfully request your approval of the Harvey Allegent 150 as it meets or exceeds the safety intent of the code through appropriate independent testing," Dickerson said, adding that he had spoken with 41 nearby households and collected 37 written approvals.
Board members spent extended time questioning what documentary evidence would meet the city’s requirements. Some members described paths for alternative approval: an evaluation report from an approved testing service or a technical comparison from an independent licensed engineer that stamps an opinion about whether the European testing meets the intent of U.S. safety provisions. Mechanical inspector Neil Simon emphasized that the building department will accept an evaluation from an approved testing agency rather than a standalone manufacturer claim or an unaccredited CE mark.
After debate, the applicant requested time to pursue an independent engineering comparison or an approved-lab evaluation. The board withdrew an earlier motion and then voted to postpone the case until the July meeting to allow the applicant and building staff to pursue that documentation. The motion carried on roll call (Mr. Wilson yes; Mr. Abthera/Athea yes; Miss Brooks yes; Mr. Fryzen yes).
Next step: the applicant may obtain either (a) an evaluation from an approved U.S. testing agency (ICC evaluation services/NTA or an OSHA-recognized testing lab) that confirms compliance with the intent of the Michigan Residential Code, or (b) a sealed engineering analysis comparing EN15821 to the U.S. standards; staff said either outcome could be brought back to inspectors and potentially resolved without returning to the full board, but the applicant asked to return with any report at the July hearing. The board did not approve use of the heater today and the unit must remain off until the matter is resolved, per the building department’s enforcement authority.
What was not decided: the board did not rule on whether EN15821 fully satisfies the intent of UL875/UL1482, and no formal lab report or engineering judgment was accepted at the hearing. The delay is procedural and intended to allow further technical review.
