Property Lines

[HoosierSparky]

I have an interesting situation. I have a company that leases a property with a building on it. They have purchased the property immediately next door and propose putting a building on it. They want to run power to a sub-panel on the new building from the leased building. This doesn't seem right, but I cannot find anything in the NEC. I have seen a section in the plumbing code that prevents this. I can't believe the NEC hasn't addressed this too. Suggestions? :?

 

[luckylerado]

I have an interesting situation. I have a company that leases a property with a building on it. They have purchased the property immediately next door and propose putting a building on it. They want to run power to a sub-panel on the new building from the leased building. This doesn't seem right, but I cannot find anything in the NEC. I have seen a section in the plumbing code that prevents this. I can't believe the NEC hasn't addressed this too. Suggestions? :?

I do not think NEC will address until and unless the new building is fed from it's own service but the owner may be inclined to know about it and I would be curios to hear what the POCO says.

 

[HoosierSparky]

I do not think NEC will address until and unless the new building is fed from it's own service but the owner may be inclined to know about it and I would be curios to hear what the POCO says.

POCO doesn't care. Electricity gets used and they still get paid.

 

[user 100]

I have an interesting situation. I have a company that leases a property with a building on it. They have purchased the property immediately next door and propose putting a building on it. They want to run power to a sub-panel on the new building from the leased building. This doesn't seem right, but I cannot find anything in the NEC. I have seen a section in the plumbing code that prevents this. I can't believe the NEC hasn't addressed this too. Suggestions? :?

You haven't found anything in the NEC because it isn't there- why should the code mandate anything about property ownership/ boundaries etc and with the details provided so far there is nothing wrong with what is being proposed.

As said above property owner opinion is what counts and if he's cool w/ it then there is no problem- this is between the tenants and that owner of leased lot.
Other avenues may be to check with ahj and poco -(did poco actually green light it?)

If they want to do it this way instead of giving bldg 2 its own svc, it's their money.

 

[mgookin]

I have an interesting situation. I have a company that leases a property with a building on it. They have purchased the property immediately next door and propose putting a building on it. They want to run power to a sub-panel on the new building from the leased building. This doesn't seem right, but I cannot find anything in the NEC. I have seen a section in the plumbing code that prevents this. I can't believe the NEC hasn't addressed this too. Suggestions? :?

Your client needs to run this through AHJ and I don't mean electrical AHJ but zoning & planning. Generally speaking, development of a parcel requires utilities for a given parcel to be able to stand alone. An option may be a unification agreement where the permit holder agrees to remedy the situation when or if the independent parcel is ever severed from the dependent parcel contractually. And they might not even accept that.

 

[kwired]

Your client needs to run this through AHJ and I don't mean electrical AHJ but zoning & planning. Generally speaking, development of a parcel requires utilities for a given parcel to be able to stand alone. An option may be a unification agreement where the permit holder agrees to remedy the situation when or if the independent parcel is ever severed from the dependent parcel contractually. And they might not even accept that.

Agree. Not an NEC issue, but rather local zoning issue.

You sometimes run into this situation when it works out the opposite way, multiple buildings all on one property and supplied by one service. Then they either sell just one building or sell it all but it gets split into multiple properties - still can create problems if you want separation from the others or if a common portion should need maintenance or repairs there can be conflict of who is responsible for it, this goes for more then just electric utility as well.

 

[oldsparky52]

Review 230.3 for compliance. I also agree with the suggestion to take it to the AHJ.

 

[kwired]

Review 230.3 for compliance. I also agree with the suggestion to take it to the AHJ.

That would only apply if running service conductors through one building to supply another building. I am fairly certain the OP is wanting to supply a feeder from one building to the other, if so nothing in 230 applies to it unless you are directed there by another article - primarily 225 in this case.

 

[jumper]

Your client needs to run this through AHJ and I don't mean electrical AHJ but zoning & planning. Generally speaking, development of a parcel requires utilities for a given parcel to be able to stand alone. An option may be a unification agreement where the permit holder agrees to remedy the situation when or if the independent parcel is ever severed from the dependent parcel contractually. And they might not even accept that.

Bingo.:thumbsup:

 

[HoosierSparky]

Review 230.3 for compliance. I also agree with the suggestion to take it to the AHJ.

230.3 would not apply. The circuits (feeders) do not pass THROUGH the leased building. The leased building is a convenience store. The lessee purchased the land next to it and wants to put a self-serve gas pumps there. I am only finding 225.30 applying to restrict them to only 6 circuits (feeders) from the leased building to the gas pumps/islands/canapy's. With that, IF they run all of them together, they would need to up-size the wire due to # of conductors in conduit and distance. They don't want to put a sub panel in either :blink: The AHJ hasn't stepped in, yet. Planning and Zoning punted. I am just looking for something to help sell putting a service on the new structure, but sometimes you just can't fix stupid.

 

[cowboyjwc]

If it's two separate lots and he plans to keep it that way, then he would have to record a utility easement between the properties, he owning both of them does not do away with that requirement.

 

[Smart $]

If it's two separate lots and he plans to keep it that way, then he would have to record a utility easement between the properties, he owning both of them does not do away with that requirement.

Would that apply with a feeder not being in the domain of a utility (ownership, maintenance, etc)?

FWIW, under Ohio law, a property owner cannot hold an easement to his own land.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I would believe so. We have some zero lot line houses here and someone was putting in a column for something and the footing went past the property line and the owner was required to remove it. Nothing from one property should pass to another property, and that includes water.

 

[Smart $]

"zero lot line houses"
Around that would be zero setback. No municipality around here permits such that I know of.

Nothing from one property should pass to another property, and that includes water.

I'm not saying any utility-provided resource should be... just curious about the legality of prohibiting such.

 

[kwired]

230.3 would not apply. The circuits (feeders) do not pass THROUGH the leased building. The leased building is a convenience store. The lessee purchased the land next to it and wants to put a self-serve gas pumps there. I am only finding 225.30 applying to restrict them to only 6 circuits (feeders) from the leased building to the gas pumps/islands/canapy's. With that, IF they run all of them together, they would need to up-size the wire due to # of conductors in conduit and distance. They don't want to put a sub panel in either :blink: The AHJ hasn't stepped in, yet. Planning and Zoning punted. I am just looking for something to help sell putting a service on the new structure, but sometimes you just can't fix stupid.

225.30 only allows one feeder to a separate building as a general rule, there are special conditions that do allow additional feeders though.

That one feeder can have up to six disconnecting means at the separate building though.

 

[oldsparky52]

230.3 would not apply. The circuits (feeders) do not pass THROUGH the leased building. The leased building is a convenience store. The lessee purchased the land next to it and wants to put a self-serve gas pumps there. I am only finding 225.30 applying to restrict them to only 6 circuits (feeders) from the leased building to the gas pumps/islands/canapy's. With that, IF they run all of them together, they would need to up-size the wire due to # of conductors in conduit and distance. They don't want to put a sub panel in either :blink: The AHJ hasn't stepped in, yet. Planning and Zoning punted. I am just looking for something to help sell putting a service on the new structure, but sometimes you just can't fix stupid.

If I'm understanding your setup correctly, I'm not understanding why you want to install a service over there. Today, mostly dispensers are used and not pumps (at the island, pump is in the tank) so if this is true of this site you don't have any motor loads to deal with and the controls will be in the existing C-store. The only loads of consequence would be the canopy lights, and if you use LED's ....

So, I see a conduit to each dispenser from the C-store, one to the canopy, and you're done (well, and intercom conduit too). What am I missing?

You will still need the dispenser conduit to go to the C-store even if you install a separate panel on the new lot. The only thing would be the canopy lights would go to the new panel instead of the C-store panel. It doesn't seem worth it (the new panel on the adjacent lot).

What's the reason for wanting a new service?

 

[kwired]

If I'm understanding your setup correctly, I'm not understanding why you want to install a service over there. Today, mostly dispensers are used and not pumps (at the island, pump is in the tank) so if this is true of this site you don't have any motor loads to deal with and the controls will be in the existing C-store. The only loads of consequence would be the canopy lights, and if you use LED's ....

So, I see a conduit to each dispenser from the C-store, one to the canopy, and you're done (well, and intercom conduit too). What am I missing?

You will still need the dispenser conduit to go to the C-store even if you install a separate panel on the new lot. The only thing would be the canopy lights would go to the new panel instead of the C-store panel. It doesn't seem worth it (the new panel on the adjacent lot).

What's the reason for wanting a new service?

OP did mention it is separately owned property and it will be self service (possibly meaning you must pay with card at the dispenser). If it would happen to have it's own fuel storage and pumping equipment as well then it is able to be a stand alone facility should he ever terminate the lease with the C store.

 

[oldsparky52]

OP did mention it is separately owned property and it will be self service (possibly meaning you must pay with card at the dispenser). If it would happen to have it's own fuel storage and pumping equipment as well then it is able to be a stand alone facility should he ever terminate the lease with the C store.

I agree with you , but installing new tanks when you have some existing is a very expensive proposition. It make much more sense to tie into the existing storage and pumping system. It doesn't make sense to me to install new tanks and controls when the existing exists. In order to pay with a credit card, there needs to be some back room equipment (that most likely exists at the C-store).

As far as separately owned property, I thought the owner purchased it and so it is now his.

Edit: I just went and reread the OP, and it looks like the C-store owner is leasing the C-store property and purchased the lot next door. So if his intentions is to move his operation next door when the lease expires, that changes everything.

 

[kwired]

I agree with you , but installing new tanks when you have some existing is a very expensive proposition. It make much more sense to tie into the existing storage and pumping system. It doesn't make sense to me to install new tanks and controls when the existing exists. In order to pay with a credit card, there needs to be some back room equipment (that most likely exists at the C-store).

As far as separately owned property, I thought the owner purchased it and so it is now his.

Edit: I just went and reread the OP, and it looks like the C-store owner is leasing the C-store property and purchased the lot next door. So if his intentions is to move his operation next door when the lease expires, that changes everything.

That last statement can be a big driving factor in something that otherwise doesn't seem like a good idea.

Any time you have an operation that happens on adjacent but separately owned properties you are likely to see something that don't make sense if you are not aware there is separate ownership. It is hard to sell one property and keep one or the other or both in operation if they are dependent on one another for operation or even have a change in the leasing.

 

[cowboyjwc]

"zero lot line houses"
Around that would be zero setback. No municipality around here permits such that I know of.


I'm not saying any utility-provided resource should be... just curious about the legality of prohibiting such.

Zero lot line is instead of two 5 foot side yards there is only one 5 foot side yard and the property line is the exterior wall of the next door neighbors house. You can't even run conduit on that wall because you would be in the neighbors yard. That wall is also a rated wall and can't have any opening in it.