NEC Feeder Routing in Individually Owned Townhomes

[wwhitney]

The list that Ice shared seems to answer those concerns. Well Done

But there is no requirement in the NEC that the feeder conductors for one townhouse unit be "outside" another townhouse unit.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

But there is no requirement in the NEC that the feeder conductors for one townhouse unit be "outside" another townhouse unit.

Cheers, Wayne

While that is correct in that Article 230 applies to services and not feeders, there is a possible implication for those jurisdictions that would treat feeders on a par with service entrance conductors.

 

[Joe.B]

Ran across this and it made me think of this conversation.

Specifically:

"Dwelling units within a single structure separated
by firewalls do not constitute separate buildings."

 

[jar546]

View attachment 15983
Ran across this and it made me think of this conversation.

Specifically:

"Dwelling units within a single structure separated
by firewalls do not constitute separate buildings."

Unless they are real firewalls, and not just a loosely used term.

 

[Joe.B]

The way I'm looking at it is that this is a residential code reference. The residential code does not have provisions for "creating" two buildings out of one by using a real firewall. If you're doing that you're no longer in the residential code, you're in the building code and accessibility is accounted for.

I realize that CA is maybe an outlier with this, our codes allow one- and two-family homes and townhomes to use the residential code or the building code. It seems like other states make that more of a mandate than an option.

 

[jar546]

The way I'm looking at it is that this is a residential code reference. The residential code does not have provisions for "creating" two buildings out of one by using a real firewall

How dare you be logical and make sense!

 

[wwhitney]

"Dwelling units within a single structure separated by firewalls do not constitute separate buildings."

Since that's in the scope section R320.1 (as amended by California), I would say it is implicit that the applicability is only to section R320, rather than more broadly.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Joe.B]

Since that's in the scope section R320.1 (as amended by California), I would say it is implicit that the applicability is only to section R320, rather than more broadly.

Cheers, Wayne

Thank you captain obvious. I didn't say otherwise. I just said seeing this reminded me of this conversation, the concept of one building and how that is affected by various codes and laws. I don't know why you would assume I was implying that this single code reference would have any broad sweeping implications.

 

[wwhitney]

I didn't say otherwise. I just said seeing this reminded me of this conversation

OK, "made me think of this conversation" could mean "because it bears directly on the issue here" or could mean "because it's a different code section dealing with the same issue." Now you've made it clear you meant the latter.

BTW, the code amendment in R320.1 should really say "for the purposes of this article" to be 100% clear.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Joe.B]

Yep, mind reading is definitely harder through an internet connection

 

[ICE]

Yep, mind reading is definitely harder through an internet connection

But you keep trying anyway.

 

[steveray]

Yep, mind reading is definitely harder through an internet connection

Even harder when their head is buried in their......Forum

 

[Joe.B]

But you keep trying anyway.

As in the royal "you"