Fire Station & AFCI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Click on the link in my post #48. Might change your mind!
Inspector Mike
ESI

Nope:


(a) The dwelling units in the structure are specifically constructed, kept, used, maintained, advertised, and held out to the public to be a place where temporary residence is offered for pay to persons .


(7) “Dwelling unit” means an accommodation room within a hotel that contains independent provisions for living, eating, cooking, sleeping, and sanitation.


Neither refer to a fire station and both apply to Ohio, and this discussion is regarding the NEC not Ohio's Revised Code. Heck I've never even been to Ohio
 
Last edited:
nhfire77 said:
Click on the link in my post #48. Might change your mind!
Inspector Mike
ESI

Nope:


(a) The dwelling units in the structure are specifically constructed, kept, used, maintained, advertised, and held out to the public to be a place where temporary residence is offered for pay to persons .


(7) ?Dwelling unit? means an accommodation room within a hotel that contains independent provisions for living, eating, cooking, sleeping, and sanitation.


Neither refer to a fire station and both apply to Ohio, and this discussion is regarding the NEC not Ohio's Revised Code. Heck I've never even been to Ohio
Click to expand...

The use of dwelling unit in that section of the code made me see that it did not apply only to houses. Not easy to get me to change my mind but it was changed here.

(D) ?Residential building? means a structure that is a one-family, two-family, or three-family dwelling house or a dwelling unit within that structure, any accessory structures incidental to that dwelling house, and a unit in a condominium development in which the owner holds title to that unit. ?Residential building? includes any structure that is used as a model to promote the sale of a similar dwelling house.

I know Ohio is not the law of the land but I'll bet we are not the only ones who look at it this way.
 
jxofaltrds said:
The use of dwelling unit in that section of the code made me see that it did not apply only to houses. Not easy to get me to change my mind but it was changed here.

(D) ?Residential building? means a structure that is a one-family, two-family, or three-family dwelling house or a dwelling unit within that structure, any accessory structures incidental to that dwelling house, and a unit in a condominium development in which the owner holds title to that unit. ?Residential building? includes any structure that is used as a model to promote the sale of a similar dwelling house.

I know Ohio is not the law of the land but I'll bet we are not the only ones who look at it this way.
Click to expand...

A fire station is not a residential building and doesn't have a dwelling unit.
 
nhfire77 said:
A fire station is not a residential building and doesn't have a dwelling unit.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the NEC says that a dwelling unit has to be in a residential building. The only definition of dwelling unit that applies the the rules in the NEC is the definition found in Article 100. The construction of some fire stations creates a dwelling unit within the station.
 
* * * *

nhfire77,

The IBC would take precedence in the classifying the fire station /
building / facility as a Residential Occupancy Group [ refer to
Section 310, `06 IBC ]......Once the the station / building /
facility is classified in this manner, it is considered a Residence.
As a Residence, the requirements [ from the NEC ] regarding
AFCI protection apply...... Whether the occupants are living,
...resting, ...sleeping, ...bathing, ...cooking or whatever is
irrelevant.......The environment is constructed to meet the
requirements [ and protection ] of a Residence.


jxofaltrds asked:
"If I have friends over and pray in my living room does
that make it a church, assembly hall, or whatever?
Click to expand...
Since the "church" is not a building at all, technically and
Biblically speaking, "no !"

* * * *
 
Last edited:
north star said:
* * * *

nhfire77,

The IBC would take precedence in the classifying the fire station /
building / facility as a Residential Occupancy Group [ refer to
Section 310, `06 IBC ]......Once the the station / building /
facility is classified in this manner, it is considered a Residence.
As a Residence, the requirements [ from the NEC ] regarding
AFCI protection apply...... Whether the occupants are living,
...resting, ...sleeping, ...bathing, ...cooking or whatever is
irrelevant.

* * * *
Click to expand...

I hate to do this but I don't need the IBC to tell me what the building is.

The NEC as it stands determines that in regards to the application of the NEC unless you have amendments to it.
 
iwire said:
I hate to do this but I don't need the IBC to tell me what the building is.

The NEC as it stands determines that in regards to the application of the NEC unless you have amendments to it.
Click to expand...

Would this be any different than the CBO (Chief Building Official) telling the EI what to approve or not approve? Or is it different in your neck of the woods?
 
* * * *

iwire,

I will respectfully disagree with you!.....The IBC does in fact assign
occupancy group types to the various type structures......And since
the fire station / bldg. is a Residential occupancy, the requirements
for the AFCI will apply!

FWIW, ...a CBO is a Certified Building Official.

* * * *
 
Now we debate CBO. LOL

Central Ohio Code Officials Association

CODE REFERENCES - Allyn Sheldon, City of Circleville

Meeting Date: 6/16/2004

Question: Can you accept a letter referencing a Section of the OBC concerning termite protection, but the project is built under the ORC?

Discussion: Since OBC is a national recognized document it can be accepted as an alternate method, but the Chief Building Official has the option to approve/disapprove.
http://www.cocoa-online.org/cocoa/i...d=23:2004&catid=16:code-consistency&Itemid=19
 
jxofaltrds said:
Would this be any different than the CBO (Chief Building Official) telling the EI what to approve or not approve? Or is it different in your neck of the woods?
Click to expand...
If your unit of government is set up that way then it would be possible.

Even though the electrical inspector in our city reports to the CBO, the CBO has no authority as to electrical inspections and as to what is approved or not approved by the electrical inspector. There are methods of appeal, but they do not go to the CBO. They go to the electrical commission, then to the city council and then to the courts if someone would want to take it that far.
 
north star said:
* * * *

iwire,

I will respectfully disagree with you!.....The IBC does in fact assign
occupancy group types to the various type structures......And since
the fire station / bldg. is a Residential occupancy, the requirements
for the AFCI will apply!

FWIW, ...a CBO is a Certified Building Official.

* * * *
Click to expand...

If for some reason the building code said the building was mercantile for instance, and in one part of it if the right conditions exist it could still be a dwelling unit under the NEC.

There is nothing in the IBC that changes the rules in the NEC.
 
iwire said:
If for some reason the building code said the building was mercantile for instance, and in one part of it if the right conditions exist it could still be a dwelling unit under the NEC.

There is nothing in the IBC that changes the rules in the NEC.
Click to expand...

Bob
Isn't there a place in the beginning of the IBC where it states that the NEC supersedes the IBC?

Something like "Wherever the requirements of this standard differ from the National
Electrical Code, the National
Electrical Code shall apply" ?

For some reason I remember this and I don't have my copy of the IBC at the ready.
 
nhfire77 said:
Yes.

And by the definition below its says ....for living, sleeping, cooking AND sanitation....

Dwelling Unit. A single unit, providing complete and independent
living facilities for one or more persons, including
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and
sanitation.

All four are not provided. There is no way to live there. You very well may spend 30 days continuously in the building, but you do not 'live' or 'dwell'. For 30 days, you work.

When you leave the fire station, you would supposedly return to another place you dwell. Dwelling or living implies you may come and go freely. This is not so in a fire station. You are under another's control to a large degree. Not so at home, ok maybe depending on your wife.
Click to expand...

They sure are in the ones I've seen.

Suppose it's 9:30pm and a fella's sitting in front of the 60" wide screen tuned to ESPN with his feet up perusing a crossword puzzle, is he "working" or "living"? He sure ain't "dying" which would be the only other choice!

And suppose I'm at a hotel suite, on extended assignment for my company, am I "living" or "working" if I tune into the SciFi channel at 8:00pm? Because by your definition, that hotel suite isn't a dwelling unit since somehow I don't "live" there.
 
gadfly56 said:
They sure are in the ones I've seen.

Suppose it's 9:30pm and a fella's sitting in front of the 60" wide screen tuned to ESPN with his feet up perusing a crossword puzzle, is he "working" or "living"? He sure ain't "dying" which would be the only other choice!

And suppose I'm at a hotel suite, on extended assignment for my company, am I "living" or "working" if I tune into the SciFi channel at 8:00pm? Because by your definition, that hotel suite isn't a dwelling unit since somehow I don't "live" there.
Click to expand...

He's not allowed to take a break, he's on duty the whole time he's there working. If they allow him to watch TV and pursue a crossword puzzle, it's still work, on the clock. He's not able to come and go freely. There are no 'break times' when on duty.


Are you free to leave the hotel suite? Sure you are. Firefighters are mandated to stay on duty in the station, their employer could decide to mandate toilet scrubbing at a moments notice, or respond to an emergency (Chief's car is dirty, needs a wash :) ). No one will allow you to just live there, either you are working or you leave. I assure you its work, from the outside it appears easy living, but its more complicated than that.

By my definition, you pay to occupy a dwelling unit. You (or your employer) pay rent on a hotel room, for the privilege to stay there. You buy a house, no one pays you to stay home (welfare does not count here). In a fire station, they pay you. There is an employer/employee relationship. That relationship establishes that work is occurring, not living.
 
hurk27 said:
Bob
Isn't there a place in the beginning of the IBC where it states that the NEC supersedes the IBC?

Something like "Wherever the requirements of this standard differ from the National
Electrical Code, the National
Electrical Code shall apply" ?

For some reason I remember this and I don't have my copy of the IBC at the ready.
Click to expand...

SECTION 102 APPLICABILITY AND JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY

102.1 General.
Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable.
 
nhfire77 said:
By my definition, you pay to occupy a dwelling unit. You (or your employer) pay rent on a hotel room, for the privilege to stay there. You buy a house, no one pays you to stay home (welfare does not count here). In a fire station, they pay you. There is an employer/employee relationship. That relationship establishes that work is occurring, not living.
Click to expand...
This is new. Your first definition was someone was paid to be there. Now it has switched to who pays the bill. Neither matters.

You have a provisions for cooking, a bed, a bathroom; then by the NEC you have a dwelling unit. Who pays the tab and who is being paid while there matters not.
 
nhfire77 said:
He's not allowed to take a break, he's on duty the whole time he's there working. If they allow him to watch TV and pursue a crossword puzzle, it's still work, on the clock. He's not able to come and go freely. There are no 'break times' when on duty.


Are you free to leave the hotel suite? Sure you are. Firefighters are mandated to stay on duty in the station, their employer could decide to mandate toilet scrubbing at a moments notice, or respond to an emergency (Chief's car is dirty, needs a wash :) ). No one will allow you to just live there, either you are working or you leave. I assure you its work, from the outside it appears easy living, but its more complicated than that.

By my definition, you pay to occupy a dwelling unit. You (or your employer) pay rent on a hotel room, for the privilege to stay there. You buy a house, no one pays you to stay home (welfare does not count here). In a fire station, they pay you. There is an employer/employee relationship. That relationship establishes that work is occurring, not living.
Click to expand...

Some employers provide housing for employees. Sometimes they may be "on duty" while in the housing unit, other times they may not be. Some even can have their other non employee family members live with them. Happens a lot here with farm and ranch employees. The space is still a dwelling unit and is not dependent on who is paying what.
 
I?m with Iwire on this one.
I have to say, a commecical building or structure can have a space within--that could be defined "other than" commercial. We can find many situations that clearly present this!! I say look at like this. If you have a kitchen within a building. Do we not call this specific space a kitchen. To add: Doesn?t this kitchen (by definition) have specific provisions under the NEC, Plumbing, and building code. Obviously we can have a dwelling within a fire station.
 
IMO, we can argue this forever as there could be an argument for hostiles, homeless shelters, etc as well as firestations and other places. I really think this should be addressed somewhere as I really don't understand why a person sleeping in a motel room with no cooking should not be granted the same protection as someone renting a room with permanent cooking facilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top