NM above ceiling in multifamily

[ryan_618]

I was recently asked to consult on a hotel type of project that was exisiting, but was wired under the 2005 NEC. My client was an electrical contractor who saw NM cable above the suspended ceiling, and became concerned about the legality of it.

This rooms in this hotel met the definition of "dwelling unit", and they were wired as such. The GFCI and AFCI rules were complied with, etc. My client was concerned about the fact that the common areas in the hotel (corridors, etc.) as well as some commercial areas in the hotel (gift shop, kitchen, banquet hall) had NM cable above the suspended ceiling.

My initial reaction was that this was a violation. The more I look at it, however, the more I think it complies. Take a look at the definition of "multifamily dwelling" and tell me if you agree with me. I think I will submit a proposal and try to clear it up in 2011, but for right now, I think it is legal, even above the ceiling of the kitchen and restaraunt.

 

[peter d]

Based on the definition, I think you may have found a huge loophole in the code.

 

[ryan_618]

Based on the definition, I think you may have found a huge loophole in the code.

Me too.

 

[wbalsam1]

It's probably a great idea for you to submit language that would clarify these definitions.
My take on it is: The hotel is a transient occupancy with rooms that each(may) meet the definition of dwelling unit, providing there are provisions for cooking (not a microwave, but an actual range), living, sleeping and sanitation. This might be an apartment hotel....but the common areas are not dwelling units and wiring with NM above suspended ceilings would be in violation of 334.12 :smile:

Edited to add: In other words, you have a mixed occupancy building (restaurant, pool, salon, spa,) dwelling unit apartments and the wiring methods for each tenancy must comply with the applicable sectionsof the NEC.

 

[ryan_618]

The rule has nothing to do with dwelling units. It has everything to do with a multifamily dwelling, which includes the entire building.

 

[peter d]

I wonder if the original installer knew this, and that's why the building was wired that way.

 

[wbalsam1]

The rule has nothing to do with dwelling units. It has everything to do with a multifamily dwelling, which includes the entire building.

Let me pursue this line of reasoning and see if you will agree. If not, maybe you can teach me something.
Dwellings, whether 1, 2 or multi-family, are based on the single unit. A single family dwelling consists of one unit, a 2-family dwelling of 2 single units, and a multi-family dwelling of multiple single units.

The building you are discussing has other uses that are not defined as dwelling units, but rather as spaces for commercial cooking, preparing meals, serving meals, common areas of ingress and egress, lobbies, vending areas, perhaps a laundry area, etc. These cannot be classified as dwelling units. The dwelling units are subject to dwelling wiring rules and the other areas are each subject to the rules governing their individual classifications.

 

[ryan_618]

I wonder if the original installer knew this, and that's why the building was wired that way.

I happen to know that that is not the case.

 

[peter d]

The building you are discussing has other uses that are not defined as dwelling units, but rather as spaces for commercial cooking, preparing meals, serving meals, common areas of ingress and egress, lobbies, vending areas, perhaps a laundry area, etc. These cannot be classified as dwelling units. The dwelling units are subject to dwelling wiring rules and the other areas are each subject to the rules governing their individual classifications.

The definition is so vague as to include all of those areas under the umbrella of a multifamily dwelling unit. Remember, the code says what it says, not what you think it says (Charlie's rules.) Read the definition and you will see it as clear as day.

 

[benaround]

Ryan,

A multifamily dwelling unit contains three or more dwelling units, a dwelling

unit needs permenant provisions for living,sleeping,cooking,and sanitation.

If the rooms do not have the provisions they are not dwelling units and the

building could not be multifamily dwelling.

So, what part am I not seeing ?

 

[ryan_618]

Ryan,
So, what part am I not seeing ?

You are not seeing the part in my original post where I stated that all of the units meet the definition of dwelling unit (all have a range).

 

[ryan_618]

The definition is so vague as to include all of those areas under the umbrella of a multifamily dwelling unit. Remember, the code says what it says, not what you think it says (Charlie's rules.) Read the definition and you will see it as clear as day.

Well said Peter. I thought the code said it to be a violation...until I read it.

 

[wbalsam1]

The definition is so vague as to include all of those areas under the umbrella of a multifamily dwelling unit. Remember, the code says what it says, not what you think it says (Charlie's rules.) Read the definition and you will see it as clear as day.

The key for me is the use of the word "solely". 1 FD = A building that consists "solely" of 1 dwelling unit. 2 FD = consists "solely" of 2 dwelling units. This definition is extended into multi-family dwelling to mean: a building that consists "solely" of however many individual ("sole") dwelling units. "solely" would not include additional uses other than for the definition of dwelling unit. :smile:

 

[SmithBuilt]

The rule has nothing to do with dwelling units. It has everything to do with a multifamily dwelling, which includes the entire building.

I agree with wbalsam1 the definition of multifamily refers to dwelling unit as specified in the definitions.

It may still be a loophole. I for one would have not used NM unless specified by an engineer. Was there and engineer involved in the design? I assume it passed inspections when built.

 

[benaround]

Now I see it, 3 dwelling units and let's say a casino still = a multifamily WOW!!

 

[ryan_618]

Now I see it, 3 dwelling units and let's say a casino still = a multifamily WOW!!

I KNOW!!! WOW!!!

 

[ryan_618]

The key for me is the use of the word "solely". 1 FD = A building that consists "solely" of 1 dwelling unit. 2 FD = consists "solely" of 2 dwelling units. This definition is extended into multi-family dwelling to mean: a building that consists "solely" of however many individual ("sole") dwelling units. "solely" would not include additional uses other than for the definition of dwelling unit. :smile:

Answer me these questions three....

1. Do the units that each contain permanent facilities for cooking meet the definition of dwelling unit?

2. If there are three or more dwelling units in a building, does not the code define the entire building as a multifamily dwelling?

3. Is there a prohibition of NM cable above the suspended ceiling of a multifamily dwelling?

 

[ryan_618]

Was there and engineer involved in the design? I assume it passed inspections when built.

I'm not sure if there was an enginner involved, but I assuming, given the nature and scope of the job, that there was. My client has been asked to fix a few things here and there. The client saw code violations and asked me as a third party to document them and state for the record that they were there before the client was.

Regarding inspections, yes, it was inspected and passed.

*edited for spelling

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Answer me these questions three....

1. Do the units that each contain permanent facilities for cooking meet the definition of dwelling unit?

2. If there are three or more dwelling units in a building, does not the code define the entire building as a multifamily dwelling?

3. Is there a prohibition of NM cable above the suspended ceiling of a multifamily dwelling?

1. yes

2. yes and no (I will explain)

3. this depends on how the building department or architect classified the building Type (Type I, II, etc.), Look at 334.12(A)(1)


My explanation to # 2.

The NEC definition does not say the entire building is a multifamily dwelling building.
What is says is "a building that contains three or more dwelling units".

As Fred has mentioned, there are mixed use or multiuse type buildings.
For example:
A building that the first first floor is retail, the second - fourth floors are offices and the remaining floors above are residential (multifamily dwellings).
In my example, I do not believe that one can use NM above the ceiling in the portions of the building that are not the dwelling unit itself, such as the gift shop and the banquet hall.
One way that the enforcement official may be able to enforce what I am trying to say is to use the ambiguity of the definition to support his stance, as it is not specific enough support Ryan's potential find.
Maybe this would be a portal to a code change.

 

[wbalsam1]

Answer me these questions three....

1. Do the units that each contain permanent facilities for cooking meet the definition of dwelling unit?

As you have described, yes.

2. If there are three or more dwelling units in a building, does not the code define the entire building as a multifamily dwelling?

Depends entirely on whether the building is solely consisting of multiple dwelling units, or whether it also consists of mixed uses where occupants are primarily permanent in nature such as non-transient hotel, dormitory, apartment house, or transient in nature like hotels, motels...where there are mixed uses.
Obviously different wiring methods would apply...say for a transient hotel with an assembly space (theatre or restaurant)..fire separations required...different wiring methods required...areas are present that are clearly not a part of the dwellings

3. Is there a prohibition of NM cable above the suspended ceiling of a multifamily dwelling?

Not prohibited within the spaces of a dropped or suspended ceilng in a multifamily dwelling...:smile: