Demising wall

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok now the owner is saying they would disconnect demo all branch circuit in one of the spaces and keep branch circuits to other tenant where panelboard is.

So the other tenant space would not have any power or light.

I guess that would make it compliant?
 
hhsting said:
Ok now the owner is saying they would disconnect demo all branch circuit in one of the spaces and keep branch circuits to other tenant where panelboard is.

So the other tenant space would not have any power or light.

I guess that would make it compliant?
Click to expand...
When he finally rents the space, is he going to tell tenant A, "Sorry, we're going to be interrupting your power at unpredictable intervals to hook up someone else who hasn't been generating a steady income stream for us"?

What, if anything, does your local code require for provision for power and light in a space, regardless if it's occupied or not?
 
Even if they have their own panel in the second space, if nobody is leasing it, they will not have a meter in anyway, so there will be no power anyway. The most I can see being done is any power that would go through the demising wall would be disconnected.(short of landlord power such as security lights, alarms etc) The new tenants in that space may want a bigger service anyway, and would be addressed with the buildout permit when that time comes.
 
hillbilly1 said:
Even if they have their own panel in the second space, if nobody is leasing it, they will not have a meter in anyway, so there will be no power anyway. The most I can see being done is any power that would go through the demising wall would be disconnected.(short of landlord power such as security lights, alarms etc) The new tenants in that space may want a bigger service anyway, and would be addressed with the buildout permit when that time comes.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
If you are the acting AHJ is it only with the electrical aspect? The building dept CBO should have an input & I would call him. If you are the AHJ then you make the decisions not the owner
 
He needs a building permit which will assist you in determining utilities required
2105 IBC
SECTION 105 PERMITS
[A] 105.1 Required. Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system,
the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.
 
mwm1752 said:
He needs a building permit which will assist you in determining utilities required
2105 IBC
SECTION 105 PERMITS
[A] 105.1 Required. Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system,
the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.
Click to expand...

Yes and building permit was received. I happen to be electrical building official for AHJ in this case but code makes it confusing that’s all. See post #1
 
Wow! A lot of worry over something seemingly low in significance.
Once the space is occupied the occupnt will need to take whatever steps to get permanent power. Until then if Tenant A and the landlord agree on branch circuits connected to "A" I can't see where anyone would be too concerned. There is no "tenant" per-se and most areas don;t encforce "what-ifs".
 
hhsting said:
Yes and building permit was received. I happen to be electrical building official for AHJ in this case but code makes it confusing that’s all. See post #1
Click to expand...
The code does not make it confusing. There is no reason for you to be the least bit concerned about unoccupied space in a building. There is no tenant in space B. Even if there were a tenant in space B there is no code violation if space B's breakers are in space A as long as both tenants can access them. A locked door does not violate the requirement for breakers to be readily accessible. It may be a bad design, it may be inconvenient, but it is not a code violation. There is, however, no need to have that discussion because there is only one tenant.
 
ActionDave said:
The code does not make it confusing. There is no reason for you to be the least bit concerned about unoccupied space in a building. There is no tenant in space B. Even if there were a tenant in space B there is no code violation if space B's breakers are in space A as long as both tenants can access them. A locked door does not violate the requirement for breakers to be readily accessible. It may be a bad design, it may be inconvenient, but it is not a code violation. There is, however, no need to have that discussion because there is only one tenant.
Click to expand...
If the landlord decides, for example, to use the unleased space for storage while waiting for a tenant, then I would say that space B becomes occupied. But if the landlord maintains access rights to space A it would not create a code problem. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top