Crossing property line to feed Detail canopy

[earshavewalls]

We have a new automobile dealership where they wish to install a detail canopy to detail cars under. The problem is that they are planning on installing this canopy on the property behind the dealership. This property is owned by the same corporation, but it is still a separate property. My problem is that even though I KNOW that this is not permitted without an easement, I cannot find a Code to support this....at least not in the Electrical Code. (California, 2013 CEC, based on 2011 NEC).

Anyone know where I can locate an ordinance or some sort of code that states this. The plumbing codes do, but the electrical code does not seem to. The closest Article I could find is that you cannot feed one structure through another. This is really not the case, since, as designed, this structure will be fed from a subpanel in the dealership (on separate property), so this is not going to be a "service", but rather it is one building being fed FROM another building, on a separate property.

Any guidance would be appreciated. Even though I "KNOW" that this will require some sort of easement to power the building from the building on the other property, but I am required to quote the Code or ordinance when making such corrections or comments on submitted plans.

Thanks in advance,
Wayne

 

[Cavie]

You will not find it in the NEC. It deals with electric safety issues. That falls under local permiting codes (which you probably need) even if it is the same owner, it's no different than some other neighbor unless the properties have been combined thru the property appraisers or tax office. There may be an easement between. No you cannot run electric.

 

[cowboyjwc]

You need to check with you local utility and see what they have to say.

 

[kwired]

You need to check with you local utility and see what they have to say.

No matter what the utility says, IMO it is none of their business how you supply that unless you are requesting a new service from them. Separate meter is just one more minimum monthly payment to them, IMO you have the right to power it from any source otherwise legal, including the source they supply to a paid service on the adjacent property.

If I want to purchase an entire city block, and have one meter and one electric bill for every building/property then I don't see why I legally can't. They may not want to, but I would hope a judge would see it differently, or I can go with other options that may or may not cost more.

Now they may have a minimum size service they will supply at a certain voltage, and that would complicate things, there are industrial customers though that subscribe to medium voltage services, but if the load isn't there to justify it that could be an expensive way to go, and would be less qualified people to work on that equipment as well.

 

[earshavewalls]

This detail canopy also has water service. Per the 2013 California Plumbing Code, Section 307.1, "no plumbing system or parts thereof shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building, structure, or premises served by such facilities." They will also need to provide a waste system through a sand/oil clarifier. All of the utilities for this canopy are being brought from a separate property (on plans). This is not permitted. The electrical supply is one of many utilities that need to come to this structure.
The dealership has quite a bit of open space ON their property, very near where they are proposing this new detail canopy. It is entirely likely that they will simply relocate this facility to be completely on their property. There are many dealerships in this area....in fact that is all there is on the street where this is located. They are under separate ownership for most, but a few large corporations have bought up scattered lots and use them for their dealerships as well as for parking for overflow stock.
The Plumbing Code has given precedence to the requirement for the utility to originate on the same property as the structure. Just because the same entity owns both properties now does not mean that this will remain for the rest of time......This is something that AHJs must deal with on nearly a daily basis.
We have suggested 4 options: 1) Place all utilities on the same property as the canopy; 2) Obtain a legal easement to run all utilities from one property to the other; 3) Perform a lot line adjustment; 4) Place the canopy on the property of the dealership.
Thanks for all of your opinions.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Sorry when he said fed, I just thought meter.

Here you are not allowed to have water runoff from one property to another so I can see where the problem is, while yes it is owned by the same people that may not always be the case (may sell it). They may want to talk to the local planning department about merging the two lots into one.

 

[kwired]

Just because the same entity owns both properties now does not mean that this will remain for the rest of time......

Just like a small business just may grow and buy more surrounding property.

I guess it is mostly all in details of how the property is listed on the deed(s). If multiple lots or other base units have been combined to make a larger unit, they are now the larger unit, but this too can be undone and made back into smaller units again if necessary. Then you get situations where you have what is essentially a single building with different owners of different portions of the building.

 

[mgookin]

Just like a small business just may grow and buy more surrounding property.

I guess it is mostly all in details of how the property is listed on the deed(s). If multiple lots or other base units have been combined to make a larger unit, they are now the larger unit, but this too can be undone and made back into smaller units again if necessary. Then you get situations where you have what is essentially a single building with different owners of different portions of the building.

The building code requires fire rating of exterior walls with respect to distance from a property line.

 

[kwired]

The building code requires fire rating of exterior walls with respect to distance from a property line.

From some things I have seen more recent years, apparently does for buildings on same property sometimes as well. SFD and a detached garage maybe not so much but non residential applications I have seen more of this in recent years. Not too many years ago I remember a school building that had gypsum wallboard behind the siding, but only where it faced a nearby existing building (which was 1920's constructed and like 14" thick brick exterior) the rest of the exterior only had OSB behind the siding.

 

[mgookin]

From some things I have seen more recent years, apparently does for buildings on same property sometimes as well. SFD and a detached garage maybe not so much but non residential applications I have seen more of this in recent years. Not too many years ago I remember a school building that had gypsum wallboard behind the siding, but only where it faced a nearby existing building (which was 1920's constructed and like 14" thick brick exterior) the rest of the exterior only had OSB behind the siding.

They call that an assumed property line.

I used to tell the civil engineers in preapplication meetings to show me 30'-1" between buildings so the architect would not have to fire rate the walls to accomodate a 15' distance from an assumed property line.