code challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.

apauling

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

hurk: although i agree with what you are saying, property issues aren't code issues of the NEC, at least as far as i understand it. Also, where property is under one management, i am not sure off the top that the same rules apply.


but i do want to emphasize that i think your take on property issues should be considered in the design of multiply owned buildings. I don't think issues like this were forseen in the early days of condo-ization.

later, paul
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Re: code challenge

OK, Paul I see where you are coming from on this now that you have explained your view sufficiently.

Are you ready for this: I agree with you in principle. However, when it comes to your interpretation of the NEC rules and definitions you cited, I still think you are completely wrong, espcially on these points:


The disconnect does NOT stop the feeders from being part of the service.
A "feeder that passes from one unit thru another (thru one dwelling to another) needs to comply with the words and intent of 230.3.
As Wayne said, this issue is largely determined by local codes and property rights laws. If we are talking solely about the NEC rules though, your argument does not stand up.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Electrician
Re: code challenge

If think the definitions of Service, Service Cable, Service Conductors, Service Drop, Service Equipment, etc... determines and defines where the Service stops and feeders take over.

Service Equipment. The necessary equipment, usually consisiting of a circuitbreaker(s) or switch(es) and fuse(s) and their accessories, connected to the load end of service conductors to a building or other structure, or otherwise designated area, and intended to constitute the main control and cutoff of the supply.

After the Main everything would be a feeder and would not be part of 230, but would be governed by 225 or 300 or other articles.

Roger
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

I agree Roger except the allowance allowed in 310.15(B)(6)

For application of this section, the main power feeder shall be the feeder(s) between the main disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard(s).
I just had to throw one more in. :D
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Electrician
Re: code challenge

Wayne,
For application of this section, the main power feeder shall be the feeder(s) between the main disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard(s).
my point exactly, it's a feeder. :cool:

Roger
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Electrician
Re: code challenge

One last thought, the sanitary system runs below and through other properties in condos and other privately owned units in common buildings so why would a feeder be a concern?

Paul, you may not allow it, but it would not be substantiated through NEC requirements or definitions.

Roger
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

Paul A feeder is allowed when a building is under single management. But it has to be Identified.

Read 225.37 It is allowed but a permanent plaque or directory has to be installed.

[ December 03, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

Roger this problem is not just with electrical but apply's to all utility's serving a building. it would be the same if I lived next door to you and had my drain pipe to the city sewer ran across you property.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Electrician
Re: code challenge

Wayne, I haven't kept up with this thread but the first post indicated a single structure, and this would be different than your or my utilities running across another property, which would be an easement situation, not a code (so to speak) issue.

Roger
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

By Roger: first post indicated a single structure
Huh? Roger did you read the first post?

By neal:
A contractor installed electric service to a new 2 unit condo. The 2 unit meter center with main overcurrent protection is on outside of the unit.Is it a code violation to run a feeder through basement of another owners condo to get to second unit? Using 2002 NEC any code section?
Almost every condo I have wired was sold as real property.

Ok Roger time to get new glasses :D

Want to try mine:


[ December 04, 2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Re: code challenge

Originally posted by hurk27:
Almost every condo I have wired was sold as real property.
Wayne you seem like you are getting POed?

I say this as I just read you posts in Myths.

We all know there are other codes that come into play other than the NEC.

However those codes change from state to state and we do not have enough info to know the exact situations of this thread.

This town house may be considered one structure with two units or two separate structures, it would depend on the on the local building AHJs.

What I am having a hard time with in this post is this.

A contractor installed electric service to a new 2 unit condo. The 2 unit meter center with main overcurrent protection is on outside of the unit.Is it a code violation to run a feeder through basement of another owners condo to get to second unit? Using 2002 NEC any code section?
Call it one structure or call it two structures, either way anything past the main overcurrent protection is a feeder.

Either we have one structure with one service and two feeders or we have two structures with one service and two feeders.

No mater how the local rules are the NEC considers this one service as described in the opening post.

Bob
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Re: code challenge

Originally posted by apauling:
you are refusing to learn :p

paul
Paul you now have 173 posts here at Mike Holt's can you please show me one where you conceded you might be the least bit mistaken?

Myself, Don, Ryan, Bennie, Roger, Wayne, Pierre, Bryan, Charlie B and plenty more have all admitted we have learned something here from other members.

So I am curious have you ever learned anything here?

If not, that means one of two things.

1) You are gods gift to the electrical trade.

2) You have your head in the sand, in which case there is no point in you being here.

So tell me Paul which is it?

Are you a prodigy or just an insecure PITA?

Bob
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

Bob I agree that the laws can be different in other states or even down to the local level. But what I do have a problem with is if this service is installed on one end of a grade level two unit condo. How will 230.70(C) or even 225.35 be met? It can't be required to trespass upon another's property. or what if there was a privacy fence around the property that has the service on it?

If this is allowed by a AHJ or some states laws I think it would be a big mistake. :D
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Re: code challenge

I will try to find some pictures of some.

I believe it would be called an easement and would be brought up at the closing.

I was recently driving through a rural part of New York and saw rows of condos probably 10 condos that where actually touching each other, each one had a separate overhead drop from the utility to the front of each unit. I would never see this here in MA, it would be one drop.

Not saying we do it right in MA only that things are different place to place.

If I was buying a condo I would rather have an easement(?) then to have a jungle of wires (power, cable, phone) entering the front of each unit.

I have never worked on a multi occupancy building that did not have common space to run wires in. In those buildings we could not run feeders or branch circuits through units they did not serve.

In the town house type condos I would expect to run the feeder under the building to the other end.

For what it is worth the water service to my house comes from my neighbors front yard. I know this as I broke a water line in the cellar the water company came out and dug up my neighbors front yard to find the shut off to my house.
:D
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

By Bob: No mater how the local rules are the NEC considers this one service as described in the opening post.
Yes the NEC does, but this whole service would not be allowed here if these units were to be sold.
It is understood by most courts that not all neighbors will always get along and even when they live side by side it cannot be assumed that this service will be assessable if the two owners were to have an out and the one were to block the ability of the other to have access to his disconnect or OCPD. I would think these laws are more common across the country than we think.
But again with the proper agreements/easements put into the deeds it can be all good.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Re: code challenge

Originally posted by hurk27:
I would think these laws are more common across the country than we think.
A lot of things I thought where common have turned out not to be so. :)
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

Not if the wiring was done per the IEC or Indiana electrical code. It would just require those easments and agreements put into the deeds.

And also most new construction here is all under ground so multiable service latterals don't look that bad and most of our services run to the back of the units.

Yes it has been nice. But my eye's are having a hard time staying open so I need to pry my fingers from this keyboard and get to bed ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top