Multiple Services

[Canton]

I have a fire restoration project. Long story short I have a commercial building (one building) about 2000 square feet that is divided in two for two tenants. It was zoned for two, has a 2 hour fire rated wall between the two and has (2) single phase 200 amp services with the service disconnects outside. Each tenant has access to his service disconnect outside and access to his own panel inside. The two conduits from the same utility pole mounted transformer feed this building with two sets of underground service laterals. These two businesses have been there and operating for about 5 years, until the fire.

I just gutted the place, ran new wiring, mounted new disconnects and panels in the same places and just made everything "NEW". The county is saying we are in violation of having "Two Electrical Services" at one building.....What????

This was all existing, and I'm waiting to hear the actual code violations that they are stating. I'm quoting 230.2(B)(1) and 230.40 Exception#1 has the reasons for the original installation.

Don't understand, this is no different then strip malls, doctors offices, townhomes or any other "Multi-occupancy" building that shares a building shell and separated by rated fire walls and have their own utilities.
:blink:

Any thoughts would be appreciated....

 

[augie47]

Are the two service disconnects grouped ?

 

[jumper]

Seems legal to me.

Is this job in MD or VA?

If VA, the county had better be ready to state the code sections.

If MD, who knows what they can get away with, inspections and licensing laws suck here.

 

[Canton]

Are the two service disconnects grouped ?

They are on the exterior of the building right next to the meter. They are about 30' from each other but within sight and clear as day.

 

[Canton]

Seems legal to me.

Is this job in MD or VA?

If VA, the county had better be ready to state the code sections.

If MD, who knows what they can get away with, inspections and licensing laws suck here.

In the People's Republic of Maryland.....Montgomery county:weeping:...........I hate working here sometimes.

 

[augie47]

They are on the exterior of the building right next to the meter. They are about 30' from each other but within sight and clear as day.

The issue has been discussed so many times in local meetings and it seems there are always different interpretations. The result of our discussions would be that 230.2(B)(1) would not apply as you have space available and it is by special permission which apparently you don't have. 230.40 addresses the number of service conductors and allows more than one set of conductors but does not directly address disconnect locations of the equipment. The service equipment itself would be governed by 230 Part VI and 230.72 would require grouping. Bottom line, the install would not be accepted in our area.. one building..no 230.2(A) conditions,.., service disconnects must be grouped.

 

[Canton]

The issue has been discussed so many times in local meetings and it seems there are always different interpretations. The result of our discussions would be that 230.2(B)(1) would not apply as you have space available and it is by special permission which apparently you don't have. 230.40 addresses the number of service conductors and allows more than one set of conductors but does not directly address disconnect locations of the equipment. The service equipment itself would be governed by 230 Part VI and 230.72 would require grouping. Bottom line, the install would not be accepted in our area.. one building..no 230.2(A) conditions,.., service disconnects must be grouped.

Augie, I follow what your saying, but the installations were existing. Each tenant had an occupancy permit and the meters and services were already installed. The "Special Permission" addressed by 230.2(B)(1) had to have been granted and POCO was connected. The county is trying to back track through permits and investigate what was previously done. I think because they cannot find a record or as-build/occupancy change they are being stubborn. They have not really questioned the grouping of disconnects, they are targeted on the building having two services.....

There is no space for a common area inside the building for the service disconnects, so they are immediately adjacent to the meters outside. They are essentially two buildings in one (fire rated wall). I don't see how 230.72 would apply for grouping of disconnects. I would compare this to doctors offices or townhouses that share a common structure but are separate occupancies. We do not group the disconnects at these installations. Each tenant has his service disconnect inside or outside.

I value your opinion and understand your view, with this additional information do you still view the installation the same?
Thanks!

 

[augie47]

As with all things here.... my opinion is just that..an opinion.
I honestly have wrestled with these situations (and those Code sections) for years and that's why I got together with a half-dozen local inspectors and we reviewed this over and over. My answer is based on those meetings, but it is still certainly only one opinion.
I definitely see a valid point in that you simply replaced an existing situation. That would certainly deserve a second look by the AHJ as to prior permission being granted.
Looking at it as a new install (ignoring the valid history)
It is my understanding that a two-hour fire wall does not make your structure two buildings.
As I see it, you have one building, so, excluding 230.2(A) you would be allowed one service.
230.2 does allow multiple laterals to be considered one service "running to the same location"

 

[Canton]

As with all things here.... my opinion is just that..an opinion.
I honestly have wrestled with these situations (and those Code sections) for years and that's why I got together with a half-dozen local inspectors and we reviewed this over and over. My answer is based on those meetings, but it is still certainly only one opinion.
I definitely see a valid point in that you simply replaced an existing situation. That would certainly deserve a second look by the AHJ as to prior permission being granted.
Looking at it as a new install (ignoring the valid history)
It is my understanding that a two-hour fire wall does not make your structure two buildings.
As I see it, you have one building, so, excluding 230.2(A) you would be allowed one service.
230.2 does allow multiple laterals to be considered one service "running to the same location"

Thank you for your insight Augie. I will hear something back from the AHJ next week (or two, as they are very slow to act), I'll let you know what happens.

I may just have to move one of the disconnects so they are right next to each other, or take one of the services out (hope not).

Thanks again!

 

[kwired]

Around here we have in the past been able to run a separate service to additions to buildings, as long as we had a 2 hour separation between "the separate buildings" and as long as no circuits are run from one "building" to the other "building" We do have to place a permanent plaque at each service location that tells where other services are located in the facility - but that is all under one occupant.

The fact that the OP actually has separate occupancies on top of what is often considered separate buildings sure seems to me like good enough reason to allow separate services, and IMO he doesn't need his service disconnects on the exterior to comply with NEC. Each occupancy can have it's own service disconnect on the interior and still meets NEC requirements.

I guess it kind of comes down to whether or not the AHJ sees a 2hr wall as a condition that effectively creates a separate building. 230.2(B)(1) still has the words "where there is no available space for service equipment accessible to all occupants". But if it is considered two separate buildings, then there is no way to have 2 services at one building with the OP setup.

 

[Canton]

Around here we have in the past been able to run a separate service to additions to buildings, as long as we had a 2 hour separation between "the separate buildings" and as long as no circuits are run from one "building" to the other "building" We do have to place a permanent plaque at each service location that tells where other services are located in the facility - but that is all under one occupant.

The fact that the OP actually has separate occupancies on top of what is often considered separate buildings sure seems to me like good enough reason to allow separate services, and IMO he doesn't need his service disconnects on the exterior to comply with NEC. Each occupancy can have it's own service disconnect on the interior and still meets NEC requirements.

I guess it kind of comes down to whether or not the AHJ sees a 2hr wall as a condition that effectively creates a separate building. 230.2(B)(1) still has the words "where there is no available space for service equipment accessible to all occupants". But if it is considered two separate buildings, then there is no way to have 2 services at one building with the OP setup.

Little update: I did speak with the owner and had a little more clarification. We had originally pulled a fire restoration permit, which authorizes us to "CLEAN" and make minor repairs to the electrical. When we called for a close-in inspection the inspector hit us on not having the right permits pulled because we went beyond the scope of a "FIRE RESTORATION" Permit when I gutted the place.

No big deal...couple of hundred dollars more for two more "REGULAR" Electrical permits (for both tenants) because we basically re-wired the place to the same detail and scope it had originally.

Since I originally posted the question on here I have received a few more emails from the owner of the building that he had exchanged between himself and the county. The issue is becoming that before he gained ownership of the building, the previous owner and tenants had applied for different renovation permits......supposedly the proper permits/inspections were not filled/applied/scheduled/inspected and the county does not have an exact record of what is existing and in place now. Clear as mud:happyyes:

From what I am gathering, they are seeing the building as one occupancy...and thus my headache with the two services. There were also structural modification that were made to the trusses for a commercial repair garage that they are questioning also (for the vehicle lift). The building is a single car commercial repair garage (S-1) and a Mercantile (M) Butchers Shop.

But....the "Million Dollar Question".....Why do they have an "Occupancy Permit" from the County for both tenants?....Why is there "(2) Electrical Services" connected....which requires a county zoning/permit/inspection approval before POCO will connect?:blink:

 

[kwired]

Little update: I did speak with the owner and had a little more clarification. We had originally pulled a fire restoration permit, which authorizes us to "CLEAN" and make minor repairs to the electrical. When we called for a close-in inspection the inspector hit us on not having the right permits pulled because we went beyond the scope of a "FIRE RESTORATION" Permit when I gutted the place.

No big deal...couple of hundred dollars more for two more "REGULAR" Electrical permits (for both tenants) because we basically re-wired the place to the same detail and scope it had originally.

Since I originally posted the question on here I have received a few more emails from the owner of the building that he had exchanged between himself and the county. The issue is becoming that before he gained ownership of the building, the previous owner and tenants had applied for different renovation permits......supposedly the proper permits/inspections were not filled/applied/scheduled/inspected and the county does not have an exact record of what is existing and in place now. Clear as mud:happyyes:

From what I am gathering, they are seeing the building as one occupancy...and thus my headache with the two services. There were also structural modification that were made to the trusses for a commercial repair garage that they are questioning also (for the vehicle lift). The building is a single car commercial repair garage (S-1) and a Mercantile (M) Butchers Shop.

But....the "Million Dollar Question".....Why do they have an "Occupancy Permit" from the County for both tenants?....Why is there "(2) Electrical Services" connected....which requires a county zoning/permit/inspection approval before POCO will connect?:blink:

Someone made a mistake in the past but it is now the current owners problem. Unfortunately that kind of thing happens fighting it isn't always worth it, they will find a way to get you later if you do get your way this time - I'm mostly talking about the owner and not you as the contractor here.

 

[Canton]

Someone made a mistake in the past but it is now the current owners problem. Unfortunately that kind of thing happens fighting it isn't always worth it, they will find a way to get you later if you do get your way this time - I'm mostly talking about the owner and not you as the contractor here.

Ya, my hands are tied on this one. The county is making him get a structural engineer to sign-off on the trusses issue and a electrical engineer to sign-off review the electrical. Commercial Electrical buildings in MD have to have a PE sign off for everything basically.

Its (2) 200 amp 120/240 single phase services, building is a wood structure 5A class. Its no different than a residence...but because its zoned commercial we need a PE to stamp it. I told my kid to get his crayons and stamp the drawing..:lol:...what a joke and waste of time.

 

[jumper]

As soon as you stated MD, I knew it was gonna be complicated/difficult. This state has a lot of problems-to say the least. I miss VA.