2 buildings fed from 1 service/meter

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

canibalhector

Member
Location
Mass
The local inspector failed this job stating he wants a disconnect for building 2 located in building one.
We thing we are correct in the assumption that we are correct with the wiring as shown in my (crude) diagram.

Any Thoughts?
 

Attachments

  • 41 modecai service.jpg
    41 modecai service.jpg
    45.9 KB · Views: 52
I agree that you are correct. A disconnect is only required at the building served. The wire underground is a service conductor and does not need to be protected outside the building
 
I don't understand the disconnect for the house at the second building? That is unnecessary. You could have run directly to the second building panel
 
Please excuse me

Please excuse me

Dennis,

You are right.The disconnects I drew actually do represent the main breakers in the panels.
I was in a hurry and can only draw in adobe acrobat.

Mike McLeod
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I don't understand the disconnect for the house at the second building? That is unnecessary. You could have run directly to the second building panel
Click to expand...
I think building 2 just has two service disconnecting means and doesn't feed the first building in any way.

Nothing wrong with the install in my opinion either, the meter is just a wide point in the service conductors and the load side is still service conductors. If metering were elsewhere you could still do the same install and replace the meter cabinet with a splice box.
 
What about the issue of grouping the disconnects. Since this is one service, should they be grouped at a common location making this installation non-complying?
 
Being that this is a single-family dwelling, 230.40 Exception No. 3 allows the service drop to supply a set of service entrance conductors for each structure. Each set of service entrance conductors permitted, in this case two, may have up to two to six disconnects grouped at a common location. There is no need to have a disconnecting means at the first structure for the service conductors supplying the other structure.
 
102 Inspector said:
What about the issue of grouping the disconnects. Since this is one service, should they be grouped at a common location making this installation non-complying?
Click to expand...
Valid question. We must clarify if it indeed is one service or if it is two services to two buildings. The fact that there is a meter there doesn't make it one service as far as the NEC is concerned, but it is one service as far as the POCO is concerned. But that said the "service point" is likely either at the load side terminals of the meter or somewhere closer to the source. Then there is 230.40 exception 3 as mentioned below, but I do have some additional commentary on that one in the OP's case.

RB1 said:
Being that this is a single-family dwelling, 230.40 Exception No. 3 allows the service drop to supply a set of service entrance conductors for each structure. Each set of service entrance conductors permitted, in this case two, may have up to two to six disconnects grouped at a common location. There is no need to have a disconnecting means at the first structure for the service conductors supplying the other structure.
Click to expand...

Exception 3 says "A single-family dwelling unit and its accessory structures". I question whether the second building is an accessory structure to the first building based on what has been mentioned and drawn. It looks to me like this is two separate dwelling units that are fed from the same metering equipment.

Interesting thing here is if the utility were to supply each building with separate service drop or lateral we likely wouldn't be having this discussion, it is two separate buildings with separate services, but put them both on common meter and leave everything else the same and we have confusion.
 
augie47 said:
To me, the install as shown is Code compliant.
Click to expand...
Same here, and I have installed very similar arrangements before, especially on farm places. POCO puts a meter on a pole, pedestal, or whatever and all other buildings on the place have service conductors run to this point. They usually also have a disconnect, but inspectors here do not call it the service disconnect even if it has overcurrent protection, as POCO usually controls it and can (and does) replace it with one that has no overcurrent protection.
 
Reply 2 houses - 1 meter

Reply 2 houses - 1 meter

If this is 2 separate houses (not an auxilary building), though maybe on one property, I wonder if the possibility exists for the houses to be sold to separate owners in the future by subdividing the property parcel. Of 12 years on local zoning board in my town I have seen things like that happen many a time. An applicant would gain approval to build a second house, swearing it was for elderly relatives coming to live with them forever, then a year after approval is granted to subdivide and build a second house, unforeseen family conditions arise and whoops, up goes 2 for-sale signs.

Commercial properties are more notorious for that kind of whoops. I think a lot of individuals have things pre-planned.

**Just wondering.. Has that AHJ commented upon any concerns of that nature, as it may lead to neighbors negotiating an electric bill sharing each month or feeders becoming services and crossing property lines.

Example: In a next town over, zoning variance was achieved for a 2 story commercial structure where it shouldn't have been. (That's the job of zoning and planning boards to evaluate and approve or deny such variances from the allowable.) To leave this place anonymous, I'll just say a clothing store was going to be going in there. Yes, a 2 story commercial building with 2 separate wings on each floor and center atrium. I said to a pal, watch that place, they'll split it into multiple businesses. For a single clothing store, I thought it odd when I passed there one day and noticed a new 6-meter bank on the side of the building. Of course the original applicant ran into unexpected financial trouble and want back to zoning/planning board for a sob story to now split the place into multiple businesses "after" the entire structure had been built, of course.

When I saw the original new single meter pan and riser changed to a 6-banger, I told my pal I should have laid a bet on that situation happening.

Drake,
Old Bridge, NJ
 
Drake Pallister said:
If this is 2 separate houses (not an auxilary building), though maybe on one property, I wonder if the possibility exists for the houses to be sold to separate owners in the future by subdividing the property parcel. Of 12 years on local zoning board in my town I have seen things like that happen many a time. An applicant would gain approval to build a second house, swearing it was for elderly relatives coming to live with them forever, then a year after approval is granted to subdivide and build a second house, unforeseen family conditions arise and whoops, up goes 2 for-sale signs.

Commercial properties are more notorious for that kind of whoops. I think a lot of individuals have things pre-planned.

**Just wondering.. Has that AHJ commented upon any concerns of that nature, as it may lead to neighbors negotiating an electric bill sharing each month or feeders becoming services and crossing property lines.

Example: In a next town over, zoning variance was achieved for a 2 story commercial structure where it shouldn't have been. (That's the job of zoning and planning boards to evaluate and approve or deny such variances from the allowable.) To leave this place anonymous, I'll just say a clothing store was going to be going in there. Yes, a 2 story commercial building with 2 separate wings on each floor and center atrium. I said to a pal, watch that place, they'll split it into multiple businesses. For a single clothing store, I thought it odd when I passed there one day and noticed a new 6-meter bank on the side of the building. Of course the original applicant ran into unexpected financial trouble and want back to zoning/planning board for a sob story to now split the place into multiple businesses "after" the entire structure had been built, of course.

When I saw the original new single meter pan and riser changed to a 6-banger, I told my pal I should have laid a bet on that situation happening.

Drake,
Old Bridge, NJ
Click to expand...

You maybe have legitimate concern on the dwellings, on the commercial property, just how do you propose they install wiring to six meter sockets on the original insallation? It was a single occupant at that time. When things change, that is when it is time to upgrade to the needs. I have also ran into commercial buildings where it is a "main street" area with no space between buildings and one business buys the building next door and expands into it. They then usually have the problem of having two services to one building if they make openings between the spaces
 
Thank You All

Thank You All

Thanks everyone for responding!
To clarify, this is 1 service, which feeds 2 dwelling units.
The 400 ampere meter socket is attached to the dwelling with the 100 ampere service.
The service conductors exit the bottom of the meter socket and go directly underground 85' to feed the second dwelling unit .
The second dwelling unit Has 2 disconnects (main breakers) grouped together where the service conductors enter the dwelling.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
 
Check out NEC Handbook Exhibit 230.14

Check out NEC Handbook Exhibit 230.14

The NEC handbook (2011, p. 157) says "service conductors are permitted to be installed along the exterior of one building to supply another building. Each building served in this manner is required to be provided with a disconnecting means . . . " Exhibit 230.14 does not show a disconnect at the first building for the service to the second building. IMO the drawing above is compliant.
 
225.32 says that the disconnecting means has to be at the other unit, but EX NO.1 would allow it to be at the first dwelling unit if they are under single management.
 
Just for my own clarification what exception to 230.40 allows for the second service entrance it these are in fact two separate houses. The inspector may be giving special permission and asking for the service disconnects to be grouped at one location.
I may be wrong but I do not se this installation allowed in exception no 1 through No. 5 (230.40)

This has not been called out as a Article 547 installation unless it is I do not see the allowance for this installation .

if the inspector wants the grouped disconnects in order to give special permission you might want to run with that.
 
IMO, 230.71 allows not more than 6 disconnects for each set of service entrance conductors. This would in effect allow you to forego the installation a overcurrent protective device at the main structure and have them grouped. In essence each building has it's own service
 
david said:
I think you have to get past 230.40 before 230.71 can be applied
Click to expand...


Each building has a service-- what is there to get past. If the power company came from their transformer to each building it would not be different other than having to meter it. The meter does not make it a service. If it were not a service it would need 4 wires going to it.

Do you think those conductors going to the second building are not service conductors?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top