two buildings, two properties

Status
Not open for further replies.
sandsnow

sandsnow

Senior Member
Location
Southern California
we have a proposal concerning two buildings on two different properties and same owner. They want to feed one building from another.
225-30 concerns two buildings when on the same property. By strict reading there are no rules for when the buildings are on different properties.

My first answer, maybe gut instinct is to say no, but I don't want to answer without some consideration.

Would there be any issues regarding land or real estate law here? This is in California.
 
Re: two buildings, two properties

Hi Larry,

It's an interesting question in that I've seen land sub-divided, But I've never heard of land being un-sub-divided.

I'm thinking it could get messy if the property gets sold but it gets messy when there are multiple names on a title too.

I'm no lawyer but I think if the owner controls both lots he can do what he wants within the NEC and any other codes.
 
Re: two buildings, two properties

I don't think the NEC cares about property ownership so you would be OK feeding one building from another.

That said, I think it's pretty stupid to do this. It definitely limits the value and sale potential of the other property. What's the problem with services for each building with meters being billed to the same account?

-Hal
 
Re: two buildings, two properties

These are commercial bldgs. Two lots, same owner for both lots.

As to why, my guess is because of "totalized" metering, one service being cheaper than two.

The NEC seems to care about the property ownership, or else why would it state (quote code) "Where more than one building or other structure is on the same property and under single management,...." 225-30 99 NEC

Has this changed in the 2005?
 
Re: two buildings, two properties

This might fall under exception 3. of 230.40?
It doesn't say anything about it being a dwelling just " a separate structure"
So if local inspector ok's I would say use tap at metered house's meter (load side) and run underground to existing service on other house keeping it as intact as can be, as a service, obtain a meter closer (blank) and a couple of by pass straps (to jumper the meter socket,POCO might help you out with these) and you should be good to go. Ask the supplying POCO to remove the power from the existing service drop/lateral before you connect to other service. This way if property is sold it wouldn't take much to change back and maybe a selling point to the AHJ. Don't forget to do a load calculation to make sure the supplying service will handle both house's.

Edited because I didn't read Larry's last post. :eek:
230.40 Exception 1. Still should allow it. and it still could be done as above.
Wayne's thought :roll: "Hit refresh, :roll: Hit refresh, :roll: Hit refresh" :roll:

[ February 17, 2005, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 
Re: two buildings, two properties

As the city inspector, Larry is responsible for enforcing more than just the NEC. There may be local zoning laws, easments, fire codes, and the ADA just to name a few. So just because the NEC doesn't prohibit this doesn't make it OK.

I am very suspicious. I wonder if there is an unpaid bill for one property, and the POCO won't reconnect it until its paid? Just a thought.
 
Re: two buildings, two properties

Larry,

I've been chewing on this since you first posted. As always, I wanted to look first from the real public safety aspect before applying the Code.

My initial feeling was much the same as yours. I finally came to the conclusion that, if the two properties adjoined or abutted you could reasonably treat the installation as ?campus-style? distribution and Art 225 would provide the necessary safety directions.

However, if the two structures were separated by intervening properties, I would get both SCE and your Fire Marshal involved. SCE would be interested because, technically the first building is acting as a ?utility? to the second and it is a service rather than an outside feeder. There may be PUC regulations involved. The FM will want to evaluate how it may affect first response. Neither SCE or the FM may care; in which case I?d drop it all back to 225 and not look back, it being a perfect application of 90.4.
 
Re: two buildings, two properties

I suspect this situation will need clarification from the building inspector, electrical inspector, zoning official, and POCO.

IF there were a fire on bulding #2, the Fire Dept will want to be able to shut off building #2, most likely without shutting down building #1.

In a practical sense I think it is a bad idea.
I would opt for 2 services.

Sometimes an owner plays "what if" and WE go to the ends of the earth to placate them. I usually go with my gut and have been right more often than not. (I have'nt lost work because of my decision!)
 
Re: two buildings, two properties

Thanks all for the thoughts.

Looks like this one is a false alarm.

Turns out as I was talking to my fellow employee who posed the question on behalf of the applicant, there is more to the story.

What he really wants to do is keep the services to both buildings. There is a point in the second building that is closer the the service in first building than in the second. Applicant wants to feed a large piece of equipment in second building from service in first building since it is physically closer.

This is an easy one. Not permitted. Burden is on applicant to show design in compliance with 230-2 and 225-30.

Thanks again for the replies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top