Originally Posted By: Joey D’Adamo
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Are apartment buildings allowed to have branch circuits which span multiple apartments?
Are apartment buildings allowed to have branch circuits which span multiple apartments?
Originally Posted By: jmcginnis
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joey…
What do you mean by “span”? Do you mean to pass through one apartment to get to another or do you mean a circuit that is shared by 2 or more apartments? Or do you mean something else?
Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I do not know how long this has been in the NEC.
| Quote: |
|
210.25 Common Area Branch Circuits.
Branch circuits in dwelling units shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit. Branch circuits required for the purpose of lighting, central alarm, signal, communications, or other needs for public or common areas of a two-family or multifamily dwelling shall not be supplied from equipment that supplies an individual dwelling unit. |
We have a lot of old buildings that have all the circuits mixed, in this case Mass. requires that the landlord includes any electric charges in the advertised rent.
--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: jmcginnis
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob…
I can see that this topic may well result in another one of those long threads dissecting the intention of the NEC. I have to wonder if
" Branch circuits in dwelling units shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit."
suggests that a circuit serving one unit of a multi-family dwelling may not be run through the framing members of another unit. Or does it really mean that branch circuits serving a load in one unit cannot be used to serve a load in a different unit. This could be interesting!
Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I take the NEC to be speaking of the using of one tenants electricity to run another tenants equipment.
I do not take it to mean one tenants cables can not pass through tenants unit.
There can be other rules that keep the cables out of each others units.
--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: Joey D’Adamo
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jmcginnis wrote: |
| Joey...
What do you mean by "span"? Do you mean to pass through one apartment to get to another or do you mean a circuit that is shared by 2 or more apartments? Or do you mean something else? |
Yeah, sorry, I mean shared by multiple apartments. Here's why i'm asking. Two things I've noticed...
I was looking around my apartment today and I noticed that exactly one outlet has a hot wire that's blue coming out of the conduit... but I can't find another box anywhere in the apartment containing the other end of the blue wire... and the outlet is at the end of the line, and it seems odd that it would run straight from the source just to that one outlet... so i'm wondering if it comes from another apartment or something... that's why i was curious if this was a practice or not.
Not only that, but almost all of the electrical boxes have wires entering from the top and bottom, which seems odd to me unless the outlets are wired vertically one unit after another... because who would bend conduit like that instead of just feed straight through the sides of the boxes?
Acutally i noticed something even stranger... one outlet in the apartment has both an NM cable and a conduit entering it... which is VERY strange to me... I haven't looked around closely to see if i can find the other end of that NM cable.
Strange wiring, that's for sure...
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I will simply highlight a few words …
| jmcginnis wrote: |
| " Branch circuits in dwelling units shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit." |
Branch circuits IN dwelling units shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit."
That should clarify AND make this 'more' interesting.
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: jmcginnis
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry…
EXACTLY! So now it becomes necessary to define the word “in” in the phrase “Branch circuits in dwelling units”. That might seem like a simple task but then again maybe not… for example, in some condo documents… the part of the condo belonging to the condo owner starts at the drywall on the walls and ceilings and the flooring material on the floor… everything outside of that, including the framing members is considered “common areas” and the responsibility of the condo association… therefore, could the circuits then be run in the framing members (since technically they are not part of any one condo) regardless of which units the circuits serve?
Joey...
The answer by today's code standards would be no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I once converted a house into a 2 unit apartment and paid the electric bill for both tenants myself and never bothered to separate the circuits for each unit or install an additional panel. Some of the circuits were shared by each unit and each unit had access to the circuit breaker panel.
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jmcginnis wrote: |
| Jerry...
EXACTLY! So now it becomes necessary to define the word "in" in the phrase "Branch circuits in dwelling units". That might seem like a simple task but then again maybe not... for example, in some condo documents... the part of the condo belonging to the condo owner starts at the drywall on the walls and ceilings and the flooring material on the floor.... everything outside of that, including the framing members is considered "common areas" and the responsibility of the condo association... therefore, could the circuits then be run in the framing members (since technically they are not part of any one condo) regardless of which units the circuits serve? |
While some condo documents may describe the physical limitations of the ownership, the physical limitations of the 'dwelling unit' are defined as from separation wall to separation wall. Those circuits would now be IN the dwelling unit (the condo) even though the association (for its purposes) only define the condo as drywall to drywall. I've heard of condos which define it as 'paint to paint', however, and this is the catch (which you can use against that argument for what the condo owner owns), when the drywall is water stained, wet, or otherwise damaged, WHO is responsible for the drywall repair?
WHEN (not if, when) the condo association says 'the unit owner' they have then redefined the owners space as to include the drywall, and when the framing behind the drywall needs to be repaired, and the unit owner is deemed the party responsible for that repair, the condo association has then re-defined ownership to include the framing. After which, the condo association cannot stop the unit owner from redoing that framing (as long as it does not affect the separation wall) and changing rooms around on an ownership basis, because the ownership was redefined by the board itself. It's been tried and proven down here. I've had several attorney clients who were forced to make repairs to what the documents described as 'common' walls, and they did this willingly, because now the condo association has just given them ownership of those walls, per the vote of the board. Subsequent 'changes' by the attorneys were fought by the boards, however, they had already 'given up title' to those areas by their previous vote and insistence that the unit owners make those repairs.
That was about 10 years ago, and it never went to court as the condo boards attorney eventually agreed with the other attorneys that the previous action of the board 'gave title of those walls and associated framing to the unit owner, and that said vote and action was applicable to all unit owners in the condo association, not just that one.
The condo association was still responsible for all exterior walls and fenestrations, and all separation walls.
That is the *short* definition of what "is" *is*  (or, in this case "in" ).
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida