Retail Tenant Spaces Viewed as "Separate Buildings"

[scotteng]

I wanted to share what I find as one of the most insane electrical permit comments I've ever received from an electrical plan reviewer. Apparently, the reviewer believes that an average 7,200 sf retail building with required 1-hr tenant partition walls between tenant somehow requires us to treat each tenant suite as a "separate building". This building department must be struggling to find qualified plan reviewers. This if FL BTW.

 

[electrofelon]

Well actually the reviewer isnt really that off base. Here is the definition of building (2017 NEC):

Building. A structure that stands alone or that is separated from adjoining structures by fire walls.

Of course a firewall does not automatically make a separate building, there is more that goes into it, but I would say that definition needs work. The building department should be able to tell him its not separate buildings.

 

[GoldDigger]

The "separated ... by a fire rated wall..." is not a great specification since it does not specify the minimum fire rating of the wall to qualify.

The weakness in his argument is that the fact that the NEC defines two spaces as separate buildings for the purpose of those NEC rules that refer to "buildings" does not mean that they are also necessarily separate buildings for the purposes of permit submission, occupancy permit, and other building code purposes. And in particular whether each occupancy requires a separate fee and a separate inspection during original construction.

Another extreme case is the shopping mall which may have 30 or more separate retail spaces. I can see separate treatment of each unit when modifications are made after the initial construction. Among other things modification or even substantial demolition of one unit does not invalidate the occupancy permits of other units.