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?
code challenge
- Thread starter neal
- Start date
- Status
hbiss
EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
- Location
- Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
- Occupation
- EC
Re: code challenge
No, and often that's the only way to run it.
-Hal
No, and often that's the only way to run it.
-Hal
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: code challenge
You might want to check local codes.
Where I am we can not run feeders or branch circuits through other peoples condos or even apartments.
You might want to check local codes.
Where I am we can not run feeders or branch circuits through other peoples condos or even apartments.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: code challenge
Bob, I am not familiar with the MEC so can you fill me in?
If you have a row of side by side townhouse condos or apts does each one need a separate service? If you have a common service, do you run the feeders outside/underground to each unit?
It seems like a lot of extra work!
Bob, I am not familiar with the MEC so can you fill me in?
If you have a row of side by side townhouse condos or apts does each one need a separate service? If you have a common service, do you run the feeders outside/underground to each unit?
It seems like a lot of extra work!
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: code challenge
apauling,
"Service feeders" is a contradiction of terms.
In most cases, it will be a feeder, not a service, that supplies individual units in multi-unit condo or apartment buildings.
There is nothing in article 215 that forbids feeders from supplying a building or structure that pass through the interior of another building or structure.
230.3 only states that service conductors supplying a building or structure shall not pass through the interior of another building or structure.
[ December 01, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]
apauling,
"Service feeders" is a contradiction of terms.
In most cases, it will be a feeder, not a service, that supplies individual units in multi-unit condo or apartment buildings.
There is nothing in article 215 that forbids feeders from supplying a building or structure that pass through the interior of another building or structure.
230.3 only states that service conductors supplying a building or structure shall not pass through the interior of another building or structure.
[ December 01, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: code challenge
I know here in Indiana this would not be allowed without a utility easement clause in the contract.
Or if you run these conductors on someone else's property they have every right to remove them. What would happen if they wanted to remodel and these feeders were in their way? there would be no recourse that could stop them from having them removed at the expense of the condo there feeding. which would come after you. so I would make sure there is a utility easement before running these cables.
I know here in Indiana this would not be allowed without a utility easement clause in the contract.
Or if you run these conductors on someone else's property they have every right to remove them. What would happen if they wanted to remodel and these feeders were in their way? there would be no recourse that could stop them from having them removed at the expense of the condo there feeding. which would come after you. so I would make sure there is a utility easement before running these cables.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: code challenge
If we are talking about feeders, behind a main disconnect, I see nothing in the NEC, barring local restrictions, that forbids them from running though another condo. This is a very common installation where I live, and as Hal said, often the only feasible way to do it.
Wayne, how could you get a utility easement inside of a building? The utilities authority stops at the meter.
If we are talking about feeders, behind a main disconnect, I see nothing in the NEC, barring local restrictions, that forbids them from running though another condo. This is a very common installation where I live, and as Hal said, often the only feasible way to do it.
Re: code challenge
the definition of service and therefore "service equipment' or feeds does fit this situation and is distinctly prohibited from passing thru another building or seperate residence. If the units are served by diferent meters and the assumption is that there are no circuits shared by units, then the service feed to that unit cannot pass thru an intermediate unit, and that includes feeds to distribution panels downstream from the main disconnect. It must be outside of intermediate buildings, apartments, condos, townhouses. If under 2" of concrete, that will satisfy the requirement.
this has always been a requirement as far back as i can remember.
the assumption is that all circuits passing thru a premises can be disconnected by the OCCUPANTS, not the occupants and their neighbors.
230.3
paul
the definition of service and therefore "service equipment' or feeds does fit this situation and is distinctly prohibited from passing thru another building or seperate residence. If the units are served by diferent meters and the assumption is that there are no circuits shared by units, then the service feed to that unit cannot pass thru an intermediate unit, and that includes feeds to distribution panels downstream from the main disconnect. It must be outside of intermediate buildings, apartments, condos, townhouses. If under 2" of concrete, that will satisfy the requirement.
this has always been a requirement as far back as i can remember.
the assumption is that all circuits passing thru a premises can be disconnected by the OCCUPANTS, not the occupants and their neighbors.
230.3
paul
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: code challenge
Peter it has nothing to do with the utility supplying power even though they do get easments for high rise buldings, It just called the same as it is a space that allows for utilits (Gas,Electric,Water,Phone,and Cable to run accross another persons property. With out it the person that "own's" the property has the right to have it removed. It's there property they paid for it. This is a big mistake that happens often. We had a strip mall that only had one service drop to the middle of the back of the building. each unit was sold off as a seperate peice of property. One owner in a middle unit wanted to blow out the back of his unit for more storage but the feeders to the other units were running accross the back of his building. He contacted his lawyer and guess what he got his addition. and we spent a week reinstalling each service as a seperate service for free. And also 230.72(C) was violated since one can not tresspass upon the property of another to access his/her means of disconect.
Peter it has nothing to do with the utility supplying power even though they do get easments for high rise buldings, It just called the same as it is a space that allows for utilits (Gas,Electric,Water,Phone,and Cable to run accross another persons property. With out it the person that "own's" the property has the right to have it removed. It's there property they paid for it. This is a big mistake that happens often. We had a strip mall that only had one service drop to the middle of the back of the building. each unit was sold off as a seperate peice of property. One owner in a middle unit wanted to blow out the back of his unit for more storage but the feeders to the other units were running accross the back of his building. He contacted his lawyer and guess what he got his addition. and we spent a week reinstalling each service as a seperate service for free. And also 230.72(C) was violated since one can not tresspass upon the property of another to access his/her means of disconect.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: code challenge
Paul, I don't agree. Again, you are crossing definitions and code articles to make it say what you want it to say.
Paul, I don't agree. Again, you are crossing definitions and code articles to make it say what you want it to say.
At this point, 230.3 no longer applies, because it is a feeder , not a service conductor. Feeders are not within the scope of article 230!
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: code challenge
Wayne,
I see the same thing on strip malls all the time. Usually the buildings are rented and there is no problem. Sounds like he had a good lawyer!
[ December 02, 2004, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: peter d ]
Wayne,
I see the same thing on strip malls all the time. Usually the buildings are rented and there is no problem. Sounds like he had a good lawyer!
[ December 02, 2004, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: peter d ]
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: code challenge
Peter while the NEC might not seen to address this there are other laws that we must also follow. The NEC is not the only set of codes we have to follow. property rights law, and building codes are just a few of the codes we must know when we get into large instlations.
Peter while the NEC might not seen to address this there are other laws that we must also follow. The NEC is not the only set of codes we have to follow. property rights law, and building codes are just a few of the codes we must know when we get into large instlations.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: code challenge
Wayne, I agree.
[ December 02, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: peter d ]
Wayne, I agree.
Clearly, it was the contractors fault for not knowing the codes that you speak of. If it was known that each building was going to be sold off, why was the service arranged this way? Something doesn't add up here.
[ December 02, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: peter d ]
Re: code challenge
peterd: the definition of service includes the dewlivery of power to a premises, NOT to a disconnect. Please read the definitions. I am not crossing sections. 230.3 means exactly what it says.
There are outs to the provision (230.3) in that the NEC allows cetain forms of protection to be used to define "outside". The delivery of power to a premises is a service and service equipment cannot pass thru another premises.
read hurk's as well.
this isn't local code,it is the NEC. Your local area may do this, but that doesn't automatically mean it is NEC compliant.
paul
peterd: the definition of service includes the dewlivery of power to a premises, NOT to a disconnect. Please read the definitions. I am not crossing sections. 230.3 means exactly what it says.
There are outs to the provision (230.3) in that the NEC allows cetain forms of protection to be used to define "outside". The delivery of power to a premises is a service and service equipment cannot pass thru another premises.
read hurk's as well.
this isn't local code,it is the NEC. Your local area may do this, but that doesn't automatically mean it is NEC compliant.
paul
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: code challenge
Peter yes it was our company's fault. I wasn't on this job to speak, But the electrician who was, had done allot of strip malls, just had never done one that each unit was sold individually. luckily there was only 4 of the units sold at the time (they just happen to be the ones that went across his back wall :roll: ) and the change out went smooth. and he was able to do it in three days and the POCO had the new laterals ran right behind him. and the fact that the one unit that was enlarged had to have the feeders re ran anyway. He had installed main breaker panel also so all of them were made into back to back services. He said he thought he was only allowed to have one service on the building and didn't know each unit is a separate building when there is a fire wall. :roll: This was a few years ago also. Even the inspector was not aware of this at the time.
Peter yes it was our company's fault. I wasn't on this job to speak, But the electrician who was, had done allot of strip malls, just had never done one that each unit was sold individually. luckily there was only 4 of the units sold at the time (they just happen to be the ones that went across his back wall :roll: ) and the change out went smooth. and he was able to do it in three days and the POCO had the new laterals ran right behind him. and the fact that the one unit that was enlarged had to have the feeders re ran anyway. He had installed main breaker panel also so all of them were made into back to back services. He said he thought he was only allowed to have one service on the building and didn't know each unit is a separate building when there is a fire wall. :roll: This was a few years ago also. Even the inspector was not aware of this at the time.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: code challenge
I have never done a row of apartments or town houses. My first though would be that I would have to run from the service underground into each unit.
What I have done is malls, large apartment or condo buildings etc.
In each of these we have to go underground or if there are common / public hallways run the feeders through the hallways.
This is not an NEC issue that I am aware of I believe it is a building code.
I am a little confused with some of the postings in this thread.
Generally a building has one service regardless of the location or number of meters. The service stops at the first disconnect.
In a building with multiple meters often the service disconnect is on the supply side of the metering not the load side. (At least here in the area I work)
The amount of work has nothing to do with the codes now does it?
I have never done a row of apartments or town houses. My first though would be that I would have to run from the service underground into each unit.
What I have done is malls, large apartment or condo buildings etc.
In each of these we have to go underground or if there are common / public hallways run the feeders through the hallways.
This is not an NEC issue that I am aware of I believe it is a building code.
I am a little confused with some of the postings in this thread.
Generally a building has one service regardless of the location or number of meters. The service stops at the first disconnect.
In a building with multiple meters often the service disconnect is on the supply side of the metering not the load side. (At least here in the area I work)
jimwalker
Senior Member
- Location
- TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: code challenge
The problem is what happens even if its under slab should the wire/conduit go bad.The other unit might be having there living room floor being cut up.We must not go under over or thru others units without an agreement.Yes it might be a lot more costly.This is not NEC but realty laws
The problem is what happens even if its under slab should the wire/conduit go bad.The other unit might be having there living room floor being cut up.We must not go under over or thru others units without an agreement.Yes it might be a lot more costly.This is not NEC but realty laws
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
Re: code challenge
I have done this a few times in the last ten years.
I have done this a few times in the last ten years.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: code challenge
Wayne, OK, that makes more sense now, thanks.
Paul,
I still am not following you. The NEC has a clear demarcation where a service begins and ends. The way you are wording it, all parts of a service, including feeders, fall under article 230.
I must ask: Where do you think a service stops and a feeder begins?
230.3 only applies to service conductors, not the feeders that Neal originally asked about.
Wayne, OK, that makes more sense now, thanks.
Paul,
I still am not following you. The NEC has a clear demarcation where a service begins and ends. The way you are wording it, all parts of a service, including feeders, fall under article 230.
I must ask: Where do you think a service stops and a feeder begins?
230.3 only applies to service conductors, not the feeders that Neal originally asked about.
- Status