Condo 50 Amp Main

[David Banks]

Condo today with 50 Amp Main in utility room. All units were 50 Amps.
Large complex with 4 units in each building. I know NEC says 100 amp minimum for one family dwellings. Is condo considered one family? I seem to remember but can not find there is something about other than one family installations require at least 60 Amps.
Any suggestions for write up on this 50 Amp-main in condo?

[Markus Keller]

Condo is considered a SF legally, at least in IL
I would suggest checking with local Muni on upgrade requirements. Here if misc. electrical work is less than 60% of system total they don't have to upgrade to current code, so 50 might still be OK depending.
The idea being that you can't just make owners upgrade continuously to current code. It's not so much that what was ok, is so bad or D&H, it's more that current Code is supposedly better.

[Gunnar Alquist]

If the appliances are largely gas fired and there is no high current demand, like A/C, range or dryer, and if the condos are smallish, then 50 amp might be adequate. Not referring to code, but just to use.

[Jerry Peck]

I know NEC says 100 amp minimum for one family dwellings.

David,

Actually, the NEC addresses that as the minimum for a "dwelling unit", and a single family house is a "dwelling unit", a one- and two-family house is a "dwelling unit", attached townhouses are "dwelling units", an apartment is a "dwelling unit", and a condo is also a "dwelling unit".

In fact, when it comes to code and structures, a "condo" is the same as an "apartment" - and both are "dwelling units".

[David Banks]

Thanks Jerry.
IRC 2003 E3502.1........... For one family dwellings, the ratings of the ungrounded conductors shall be not less than 100 amperes,3 wire.
For all other installations, the rating of the ungrounded conductors shall not be less than 60 amps.
Question. What do they mean by all other installations?

[Robert Dalga]

Sure this wasn't a subpanel?

[Russel Ray]

Many, if not all, of the older condos here in San Diego are 30, 40, 60, or 75-amp capacity.

Remember, though, the various introductory pages to the code addressed in Article 80-Administration and Enforcement (2002):

80.9(A) - ....This Code applies to new installations....
(B) - ....Existing electrical installations that do not comply with the provisions of this Code shall be permittted to be continued in use unless the authority having jurisdiction determines that the lack of conformity with this Code presents an imminent danger to occupants....

80.11(B) - ....Existing buildings that are occupied at the time of adoption of this Code shall be permitted to remain in use provided the following conditions apply:
(1) The occupancy classification remains unchanged
(2) There exist no condition deemed hazardous to life or property that would constitute an imminent danger....

The other thing to remember is that the overuse of outlet multipliers and extension cords is a major cause of fires in our homes (according to my friends at State Farm and Farmers). Consequently, I inform my Clients that there are some insurance companies that will decline insurance if the service capacity is less than 100 amps, the reason being because accompanying a lower service capacity is a fewer number of outlets in the home, thereby encouraging homeowners to use outlet multipliers and extension cords as permanent wiring. It can get particularly bad when one has extension cords plugged into extension cords plugged into extension cords to put that computer desk in the well-lighted corner with a view out the window rather than the dark corner with a view of the wall.

Some other insurance companies will insure the home but at a higher premium. Still others simply demand an upgrade to 100 amps.

I have found that insurance companies are more forgiving, though, when the lower service capacity is in a condo with everyone else having the same service capacity. Not sure why that is, but do any of us really understand insurance?

I advise my Clients to start searching around immediately for homeowners' insurance.

[David Banks]

Sure this wasn't a subpanel?

No. 50 Amp main with meter in utility room. I was surprised because the I have never seen less than 60 Amp main. Panel in condo.

[John Steinke]

Whether the service is 'large' enough depends upon when the condo was built. The 100 amp minimum isn't very old - maybe six years.

It's quite possible that 50 amps is plenty- especially if HVAC is central to the building, hot water is provided by a common boiler, and there's no laundry facilities in the unit.

If an electrician were asked for an opinion, he'd probably simply turn everything on, and see what current was drawn. He might do a formal load calculation. 50 amp might very well be plenty of power.

[David Banks]

Thanks all much appreciated.

[Jerry Peck]

Thanks Jerry.
IRC 2003 E3502.1........... For one family dwellings, the ratings of the ungrounded conductors shall be not less than 100 amperes,3 wire.
For all other installations, the rating of the ungrounded conductors shall not be less than 60 amps.
Question. What do they mean by all other installations?

:D

David,

I, and everyone else I can think of right now, have been reading that, and the matching NEC section, wrong for many years now.

From the 2006 IRC.

DWELLING
- Dwelling unit. A single unit, providing complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation.

- One-family dwelling. A building consisting solely of one dwelling unit.

- Two-family dwelling. A building consisting solely of two dwelling units.

Also from the 2006 IRC:

- E3502.1 Ampacity of ungrounded conductors. Ungrounded service conductors shall have an ampacity of not less than the load served. For one-family dwellings, the ampacity of the ungrounded conductors shall be not less than 100 amperes, 3 wire. For all other installations, the ampacity of the ungrounded conductors shall be not less than 60 amperes.

From the 2008 NEC: (underlining is mine)
- 230.79 Rating of Service Disconnecting Means.
- - The service disconnecting means shall have a rating not less than the calculated load to be carried, determined in accordance with Part III, IV, or V of Article 220, as applicable. In no case shall the rating be lower than specified in 230.79(A), (B), (C), or (D).
- - - (A) One-Circuit Installations. For installations to supply only limited loads of a single branch circuit, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 15 amperes.
- - - (B) Two-Circuit Installations. For installations consisting of not more than two 2-wire branch circuits, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 30 amperes.
- - - (C) One-Family Dwellings. For a one-family dwelling, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 100 amperes, 3-wire.
- - - (D) All Others. For all other installations, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 60 amperes.

Also from the 2008 NEC: (underlining is mine)
- Dwelling, One-Family. A building that consists solely of one dwelling unit.
- Dwelling, Two-Family. A building that consists solely of two dwelling units.
- Dwelling, Multifamily. A building that contains three or more dwelling units.
- Dwelling Unit. A single unit, providing complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation.

Everyone I know has been reading "one-family dwelling" as meaning "dwelling unit", but that is not the case.

We have been saying that all dwelling units require 100 amps minimum, however, by that definition *ONLY* "one-family dwellings" required 100 amps ... 'other than "one-family dwellings" ' (as defined) fall outside that requirement and fall under "For all other installations," requirement of not less than 60 amps.

HOLY COW!

All condo and apartments only require is a 60 amp service!

Somebody tell me I'm wrong on this ... please ... wake me up to what I'm reading incorrectly.

[Richard Moore]

All condo and apartments only require is a 60 amp service!

It does sound bad when you put it that way. Perhaps it would be better put...
The minimum required service for all condos* and apartments is 60 amps, OR that dictated by the load calculations, whichever is greater.

*Also worth looking at the definitions for "building".

IRC...Building. Building shall mean any one- and two-family dwelling or portion thereof, including townhouses, that is used or designed or intended to be used for human habitation, for living, sleeping, cooking or eating purposes, or any combination thereof, and shall include accessory structures thereto.

NEC...Building. A structure that stands alone or that is cut off
from adjoining structures by fire walls with all openings
therein protected by approved fire doors.

So townhouses, whether they're "condos" or not, would be considered a one-family dwelling (minimum 100 amps) as opposed to simply a dwelling unit.

[Jerry Peck]

So townhouses, whether they're "condos" or not, would be considered a one-family dwelling (minimum 100 amps) as opposed to simply a dwelling unit.

Richard,

Almost correct.

A "townhouse" is considered to be its own building.

A "condo" is just a space within one large building. Different requirements for fire separation than for townhouses.

With "townhouses", each owner owns their own building.

With "condos", all owners own the building collectively.

[Aaron Miller]

With "townhouses", each owner owns their own building.

With "condos", all owners own the building collectively.

The distinction there is only in ownership of the building. A condo is a dwelling unit as is a townhouse, apartment, single-family, et al.. The model code does not really care who owns it, or how one legally contrues ownership, be it individual or collective. It only adresses the issue of its use, dwelling, business, etc.

Aaron

[Aaron Miller]

spelchek brok

Aaron:D

[David Banks]

:D

David,

I, and everyone else I can think of right now, have been reading that, and the matching NEC section, wrong for many years now.

From the 2006 IRC.

DWELLING
- Dwelling unit. A single unit, providing complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation.

- One-family dwelling. A building consisting solely of one dwelling unit.

- Two-family dwelling. A building consisting solely of two dwelling units.

Also from the 2006 IRC:

- E3502.1 Ampacity of ungrounded conductors. Ungrounded service conductors shall have an ampacity of not less than the load served. For one-family dwellings, the ampacity of the ungrounded conductors shall be not less than 100 amperes, 3 wire. For all other installations, the ampacity of the ungrounded conductors shall be not less than 60 amperes.

From the 2008 NEC: (underlining is mine)
- 230.79 Rating of Service Disconnecting Means.
- - The service disconnecting means shall have a rating not less than the calculated load to be carried, determined in accordance with Part III, IV, or V of Article 220, as applicable. In no case shall the rating be lower than specified in 230.79(A), (B), (C), or (D).
- - - (A) One-Circuit Installations. For installations to supply only limited loads of a single branch circuit, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 15 amperes.
- - - (B) Two-Circuit Installations. For installations consisting of not more than two 2-wire branch circuits, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 30 amperes.
- - - (C) One-Family Dwellings. For a one-family dwelling, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 100 amperes, 3-wire.
- - - (D) All Others. For all other installations, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 60 amperes.

Also from the 2008 NEC: (underlining is mine)
- Dwelling, One-Family. A building that consists solely of one dwelling unit.
- Dwelling, Two-Family. A building that consists solely of two dwelling units.
- Dwelling, Multifamily. A building that contains three or more dwelling units.
- Dwelling Unit. A single unit, providing complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation.

Everyone I know has been reading "one-family dwelling" as meaning "dwelling unit", but that is not the case.

We have been saying that all dwelling units require 100 amps minimum, however, by that definition *ONLY* "one-family dwellings" required 100 amps ... 'other than "one-family dwellings" ' (as defined) fall outside that requirement and fall under "For all other installations," requirement of not less than 60 amps.

HOLY COW!

All condo and apartments only require is a 60 amp service!

Somebody tell me I'm wrong on this ... please ... wake me up to what I'm reading incorrectly.


Jerry. Sounds logical. How all of a sudden did you think of this after all these years.? Was a bolt of awareness sent from above?

[Richard Moore]

"Condos" seems to mean different things to different folk, in different parts of the country. Most townhouses that I inspect here are part of a larger (although often small) condominium complex with at least some common areas, and are often called "condos" even if the homeowner is responsible for the roof directly overhead. The definition and use of "condo" is blurry at best, probably regional, and certainly not spelled out by either the NEC or IRC. Also note that the IRC definition of a townhouse is purely physical and does not address ownership.

The definition of "building", on the other hand, seems fairly well defined which is why I posted those definitions. I think the readers can work out what they have from those.

[Jerry Peck]

"Condos" seems to mean different things to different folk, in different parts of the country. Most townhouses that I inspect here are part of a larger (although often small) condominium complex with at least some common areas, and are often called "condos" even if the homeowner is responsible for the roof directly overhead. The definition and use of "condo" is blurry at best, probably regional,

However, a "townhouse" is very clear.

If it is not a "townhouse" (from the IRC building section):
- TOWNHOUSE. A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof and with open space on at least two sides.

or a DWELLING (from the IRC Electrical section):

- Dwelling unit. A single unit, providing complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation.

- One-family dwelling. A building consisting solely of one dwelling unit.

- Two-family dwelling. A building consisting solely of two dwelling units.

The Electrical section definitions muddy it up, however, as soon as you refer back to the Building section for separation issues, that Building section definitions kick in again.

When trying to apply the rules of the Building section, remember that only one- and two-family and townhouses are covered in the IRC, for others you need to go to the IBC, in there you will find that 'condos', 'apartments', and the like (i.e., "dwelling units") are different from "dwellings".


From the 2006 IBC:
- DWELLING. A building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended or designed to be used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied for living purposes.

- DWELLING UNIT. A single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.

And that "fire walls" are required between dwellings, and "fire partitions" are required between dwelling units, thereby separating "dwellings" (i.e., townhouses and the like) from "dwelling units" (i.e., condos, apartments, and the like.




Actually, they do - see above.

[quote]The definition of "building", on the other hand, seems fairly well defined which is why I posted those definitions. I think the readers can work out what they have from those.

BUT, as I mentioned above, you must now change from fire walls to fire partitions, and know when to do so, which makes the BIG difference.

Thus, a "townhouse" *IS* a "separate building" and IS a "dwelling", but *IS NOT* a "dwelling unit".

Thus, a "townhouse" would require 100 amps, and a condo or apartment (i.e., a "non-townhouse") would only require 60 amps.

[Markus Keller]

A 45 story luxury high-rise was built and finished downtown about 1.5 years ago. It is currently rental but built in configuration and systems for possible condo conversion in the future.
60 AMP service per unit, passed plans, permit, inspection everything.
Up here one dwelling unit is one home/occupancy unit/etc. Whether it is a condo/townhome or stand alone house.
Nonetheless, by our Electrical code unless you do 60% or more of overall system upgrades you don't have to fully upgrade to current code.
The NEC says one thing. What does that municipality say?

[Aaron Miller]

Thus, a "townhouse" *IS* a "separate building" and IS a "dwelling", but *IS NOT* a "dwelling unit".



ECJ:

Note that a 3-unit townhouse could also be a condo, if it were owned in common by the tenants.

Aaron:o

[Jerry Peck]

Note that a 3-unit townhouse could also be a condo, if it were owned in common by the tenants.

Aaron,

Nope.

Then it is not a "townhouse". "Condos" can be constructed to look just like "townhouses", I've inspected many which were, and, in fact, I am inspecting a 43 building project with 244 units, 4, 6, 8 per building, which, at first look, screams "townhouse", but they are condos, to the building is allowed to be constructed differently.

The first ones even had masonry fire walls extending all the way to the roof sheathing - like a townhouse. The current building now will have gypsum firewalls (make that fire partitions) extending up through the attic instead of the masonry. Future building will likely have the ceiling fire rated and the attic common, with "draftstop" walls in the attic.

Just because "it looks like" a townhouse does not mean it is - go back and re-read the definition for a townhouse and the fire separation requirements. Note that the IRC applies to a "townhouse", and that the IBC applies to a "condo building" ("apartment building").

[Aaron Miller]

the IBC applies to a "condo building" ("apartment building").


Bush Coast Jerry:

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong on this one. The term "condominium" is a legal description of the ownership type of a building. It is not defined in the model code as there is no need for this sort of differentiation within the context of building or occupancy types. Your contention that a condominium is an apartment is absurd.

"condominium 1. Ownership in common with others. 2. A single real estate unit in a multi-unit development in which a person has both separate ownership of a unit and a common interest, along with the development's other owners, in the common areas." - Black's Law Dictionary

Your "logic" here is faulty and assumes facts not in evidence.

Aaron:D

[Jerry Peck]

Bush Coast Jerry:

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong on this one. The term "condominium" is a legal description of the ownership type of a building. It is not defined in the model code as there is no need for this sort of differentiation within the context of building or occupancy types. Your contention that a condominium is an apartment is absurd.

BrainToastedFromTexasHeat Aaron,

While there is not definition of "condo" in the code, we all (as do all municipal code inspectors) know (or should know) that a "condo" *IS NOT* a townhouse.

Look up the legal definition of "townhouse" - yeah, the one in the adopted code, that makes it "legal".

From the 2006 IRC. (underlining is mine)

- TOWNHOUSE. A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof and with open space on at least two sides.


- STRUCTURE. That which is built or constructed. (Jerry's note: Note that a "townhouse" is its own "separate" "structure", even though it is attached on up to two sides.)

- BUILDING. Building shall mean any one- and two-family dwelling or portion thereof, including townhouses, that is used, or designed or intended to be used for human habitation, for living, sleeping, cooking or eating purposes, or any combination thereof, and shall include accessory structures thereto.


- R101.2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above-grade in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures.

Take your typical "condominium building" - does it fit the above? NO.


- R317.2 Townhouses. Each townhouse shall be considered a separate building and shall be separated by fire-resistance-rated wall assemblies meeting the requirements of Section R302 for exterior walls.

- - Exception: A common 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 33 through 42. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R317.3.

- - R317.2.1 Continuity. The fire-resistance-rated wall or assembly separating townhouses shall be continuous from the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing, deck or slab. The fire-resistance rating shall extend the full length of the wall or assembly, including wall extensions through and separating attached enclosed accessory structures.

Being as a "condominium building" *is not* a "townhouse", the IRC does not apply. That means moving to the IBC, which, I am sure, you also have (should also have).

From the 2006 IBC.

- SECTION 705
- - FIRE WALLS

- - - 705.1 General. Each portion of a building separated by one or more fire walls that comply with the provisions of this section shall be considered a separate building. The extent and location of such fire walls shall provide a complete separation. Where a fire wall also separates occupancies that are required to be separated by a fire barrier wall, the most restrictive requirements of each separation shall apply.

- - - - 705.1.1 Party walls. Any wall located on a lot line between adjacent buildings, which is used or adapted for joint service between the two buildings, shall be constructed as a firewall in accordance with Section 705. Party walls shall be constructed without openings and shall create separate buildings. (Jerry's note: That is the wall between two "buildings", i.e., between to "structures", i.e., between two "townhouses".)


- SECTION 708
- - FIRE PARTITIONS

- - - 708.1 General. The following wall assemblies shall comply with this section:
- - - - 1. Walls separating dwelling units in the same building. (Jerry's note: Within "the same building", which means this does not apply to "townhouses", it does, however, apply to "condos" and "apartments"
- - - - 2. Walls separating sleeping units in occupancies in Group R-1 hotel, R-2 and I-1 occupancies.
- - - - 3. Walls separating tenant spaces in covered mall buildings as required by Section 402.7.2.
- - - - 4. Corridor walls as required by Section 1017.1.
- - - - 5. Elevator lobby separation as required by Section 707.14.1.
- - - - 6. Residential aircraft hangars.



- SECTION 310 (Jerry's note: Which group does "condos" fall into? See below.)
- - RESIDENTIAL GROUP R

- - - 310.1 Residential Group R. Residential Group R includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for sleeping purposes when not classified as an Institutional Group I or when not regulated by the International Residential Code in accordance with Section 101.2. Residential occupancies shall include the following:

- - - - R-1 Residential occupancies containing sleeping units where the occupants are primarily transient in nature, including: (Jerry's note: Nope, not here, this is "primarily transient in nature".)
- - - - - Boarding houses (transient)
- - - - - Hotels (transient)
- - - - - Motels (transient)

- - - - R-2 Residential occupancies containing sleeping units or more than two dwelling units where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature, including: (Jerry's note: Yes, could fall here, this covers "more than two dwelling units" and "primarily permanent in nature".)
- - - - - Apartment houses
- - - - - Boarding houses (not transient)
- - - - - Convents
- - - - - Dormitories
- - - - - Fraternities and sororities
- - - - - Hotels (nontransient)
- - - - - Monasteries
- - - - - Motels (nontransient)
- - - - - Vacation timeshare properties
- - - - - Congregate living facilities with 16 or fewer occupants are permitted to comply with the construction requirements for Group R-3.

- - - - R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including: (Jerry's note: "Could" fall here *IF* it meets the constraints below. Ummm ... but they *DO NOT* meet the constraints below, so they cannot fall here.)
- - - - - Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units.
- - - - - Adult facilities that provide accommodations for five or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours.
- - - - - Child care facilities that provide accommodations for five or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours.
- - - - - Congregate living facilities with 16 or fewer persons.
- - - - - Adult and child care facilities that are within a single-family home are permitted to comply with the International Residential Code.

- - - - R-4 Residential occupancies shall include buildings arranged for occupancy as residential care/assisted living facilities including more than five but not more than 16 occupants, excluding staff. (Jerry's note: "Condos" do not fall here either.)
- - - - - Group R-4 occupancies shall meet the requirements for construction as defined for Group R-3, except as otherwise provided for in this code, or shall comply with the International Residential Code.

To recap: "condos" are not R-1; they could be R-2, they are not R-3, nor are they R-4 ... that leaves "condos" as being "R-2" - right there with apartment houses.

Aaron, you need to come in out of that Texas heat and cool down and read some, you will then understand why "condominium buildings" and "apartment buildings", from a construction point of view, *are the same* and why *neither* is like a "townhouse". :D

[Aaron Miller]

ECJ:

Again I must remind you of the obvious, that the code does not bother to define the term condo(minium). It has no use within the context of the code. Since you are asking me to assume that it does, this makes your argument a circular one, as in begging the question, as in:

Formally speaking, the fallacy of petitio principii which has the following structure: For some proposition p,

p implies q (in the IBC apartments could be construed in some wild-eyed view of reality to be condos)
suppose p (condos are mentioned in the IBC)
therefore, q. (condos are apartments)Nice try, but this trick has been transparent since the 16th Century.

Aaron:eek:

[Jerry Peck]

Again I must remind you of the obvious, that the code does not bother to define the term condo(minium).

You are not reminding me of that, I already know that, and have pointed out 'the types of construction' to which a "condo" is constructed.


It has no use within the context of the code.

It does have a "use within the context of the code" in that "the type of construction", i.e., it is a "dwelling unit" is regulated by code, and that "dwelling unit" *IS NOT* a "townhouse" as you so fondly want to call it (or are you just fondling it? :p ).

A "townhouse" is defined in the code, and a "townhouse" is not a "condo" in the method of construction. A "condo" typically has a 1 hour fire partition separating it from other dwellings and from the corridor, which is absolutely not allowed within the context of a "townhouse".

[Aaron Miller]

or are you just fondling it?


Occasionally I do - just fondle it, that is the idea that you are still able to function in day-to-day life given your obvious proclivity for living in a dream world. That Flah-dah sunshine is good for fruits. Wear a hat from now on. Conical with donut atop would be acceptable. A "con-do hat". With hat in place, move to an apartment. See which one gets there first, you or the hat.

Regardless where you go with this, a condo is not a thing in the eyes of the IBC, IRC or anything I'm familiar with that the ICC publishes. It is, obviously, something that is very significant in your mind. Let it out every once in a while if you must.

Aaron:D

[Dom D'Agostino]

There's a new, small development not far from here where the detached dwellings are sold as condos, even though they look exactly like detached houses.

Condominium is a type of ownership, not a design or style.

My apologies to those folks who already understood that concept. :)

Dom.

[Jerry Peck]

Aaron (and Dom),

I'm a perspective client, I call and tell you that I am buying a "condo" on the 2nd floor in a 4 story "condo building", you agree to inspect it.

Are you going to inspect it like it was a "townhouse"?

If yes, tell me why, how, and what you would look at.

If no, tell me what you would be inspecting my "condo" as.

I'm new to this, so please tell me 'what I am buying', I mean, will I own the structure? The roof? The walls? The ground underneath? Someone told me I was only buying the 'interior space, paint-to-paint, that I will not actually own 'the structure', 'the roof', 'the walls', 'the ground beneath', etc., that can't be true, can it?

[Dom D'Agostino]

I'm new to this, so please tell me 'what I am buying', I mean, will I own the structure? The roof? The walls? The ground underneath? Someone told me I was only buying the 'interior space, paint-to-paint, that I will not actually own 'the structure', 'the roof', 'the walls', 'the ground beneath', etc., that can't be true, can it?


Sorry, Mr. Buyer. I don't advise clients on real estate related legal issues. Please consult with your attorney for answers to your questions. (you do have an attorney for this transaction, correct?)

[Jerry Peck]

Sorry, Mr. Buyer. I don't advise clients on real estate related legal issues. Please consult with your attorney for answers to your questions. (you do have an attorney for this transaction, correct?)

This is not "legal issues", this is "inspection issues". Go back and read the questions again - how, and what, will you *INSPECT*, and why?

I'll make it easier for you, this is a TWO story building, the unit I am buying is on the SECOND floor, and I have an attic access into the slope roof attic. There is a flat area on top of the sloped roof where the a/c condenser units are, with a permanent ladder going up to the roof and that flat area.

Are you going to inspect it as a "townhouse" as Aaron and you are calling it?

[Aaron Miller]

ECJ:

How's that hat fitting?

Dom and I are trying to tell you one simple thing. We would inspect your hypothetical building according to the type of building which we encountered upon arrival. But, under no circumstances would the term condo, condominium, or any other variation thereof be used in our decision-making process when ascertaining the building type.

Furthermore, we would also not consider any other legal description-related aspect of the building during our inspection, such as is it a short sale, a foreclosure, were the taxes paid, does it belong to an estate, is it a tax write-off for some fat cat Jaguar driver in Florida to keep his mid-age crisis plaything in . . . you know, that kind of drivel.

Dom may be an agent, broker, attorney, tax auditor and more. I am just an inspector who knows that whether a building is owned in common by its residents has absolutely nothing to do with its IRC or IBC classification.

Now, eat that donut and relax and revel in the fact that you could be right about this, but, you're just not.

Aaron:cool:

[Jerry Peck]

Dom and I are trying to tell you one simple thing. We would inspect your hypothetical building according to the type of building which we encountered upon arrival. But, under no circumstances would the term condo, condominium, or any other variation thereof be used in our decision-making process when ascertaining the building type.

So, what you are saying is that you and Dom *DO NOT INSPECT CONDOS*, right?

Gosh, you guys must just refer them off to other inspectors?

However, you have danced (and you guys are not very good dancers either) around my question:


according to the type of building which we encountered upon arrival

So, I ask again, *WHAT TYPE* of building would that be?


I am just an inspector who knows that whether a building is owned in common by its residents has absolutely nothing to do with its IRC or IBC classification.

So, I ask again, *WHAT TYPE* of building would that be?

Is it, as you've stated before, 'a "townhouse" ', or, if not a "townhouse", then what?

[Dom D'Agostino]

Jerry,


This is not "legal issues", this is "inspection issues". Go back and read the questions again - how, and what, will you *INSPECT*, and why?



You are wrong. You go back and read your own question:



I'm new to this, so please tell me 'what I am buying', I mean, will I own the structure? The roof? The walls? The ground underneath? Someone told me I was only buying the 'interior space, paint-to-paint, that I will not actually own 'the structure', 'the roof', 'the walls', 'the ground beneath', etc., that can't be true, can it?



I simply do not tell anyone what is (or isn't) included in the sale of real property.

You may some issue with the basics, however, I won't be drawn into one of your never-ending "quote filled" reply-a-thons.

Have fun.
Dom.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,

You are wrong. You go back and read your own question:


I'm new to this, so please tell me 'what I am buying', I mean, will I own the structure? The roof? The walls? The ground underneath? Someone told me I was only buying the 'interior space, paint-to-paint, that I will not actually own 'the structure', 'the roof', 'the walls', 'the ground beneath', etc., that can't be true, can it?


I simply do not tell anyone what is (or isn't) included in the sale of real property.

Okay, then how do you know *what to inspect*?

Dom (and Aaron),

You are stating that a condo is not defined, I am asking you what your definition is, i.e., what would you, do you, inspect when you do a condo inspection.

It really is a simple question.

Can't you answer it? If not, maybe neither of you should be inspecting condos?

Maybe you should only stick to "houses", as in "home inspector" ... wait ... I don't see "home" or "house" in the code either ...

Maybe you should stick to "dwellings" (i.e., "one- and two-family dwellings") and "townhouses".

You and Aaron have proclaimed that "condos" do not exist in the building code, thus, *IF YOU INSPECT THEM*, to what do you inspect them?

The question really is that simple.

*I* know what they are built under in the code and where they fall under the code, apparently you (either of you) do not.

[Markus Keller]

Poor David, little did he likely know that his little rain drop would turn into a tsunami.
I inspect (and WE, IL HI) are generally taught to treat the condo as a single-family res under the Code. The condo owner is liable for the SF portion of the property. The condo assoc is liable for any other aspects that may come under MF code.
Fire away Jerry.

[Aaron Miller]

It really is a simple question.


Which question? The simple one, I presume. Do I inspect condos? Which do you mean? Converted apartments now owned in common by the individual tenants? New multi-family dwelling units sold to condominium owners? Townhouses sold to owners in common? Single-family detached, zero-lot-line buildings owned in common by the owners? Office units sold in common to the owners? Which type of condo do you mean? I can find them all within 5 miles of my office, and yes, I inspect them all. Be specific, Jerry.

You were not truthful in your statement. It is not really a simple question, is it? Simplify it for us. Dom may be the president of Mensa and an Oxford professor in his spare time. I am just an inspector that has no clue what you are referring to when you say condo.

Thank you for your patience,

Aaron:o

[Jerry Peck]

I inspect (and WE, IL HI) are generally taught to treat the condo as a single-family res under the Code. The condo owner is liable for the SF portion of the property.

Markus,

Okay, at least we are starting to get someplace ... explain what you mean by "treat the condo as a single-family res under the Code".

You mean it includes the roof?

The exterior walls? (Of which is may only have one?)

The structure? (What about a third floor condo in a six story building, it is the center condo along a wall of 7 condo units, i.e., there are 3 condos to each side of it?)

The electrical service to the structure? (Not just the disconnect for the condo and the panel in the condo?)

How about the pool?

Or, are you referring to just 'the interior items of a single-family house'? Big difference there.

[Jerry Peck]

Anyone willing to state what they inspect for "condo inspections"?

Not abstract and vague things like 'same as single-family' or 'condos don't exit', but actually state what you inspect and why.

A word to the willing ... *You will likely be CORRECT too!* :D

This should lead to an interesting and informative discussion on "condo inspections" and what is, and is not, inspected, and why.

Even though, apparently, Dom and Aaron do not do "condo inspections" :rolleyes: , they are welcome to input their thoughts and ideas.

List things like: I inspect - major appliances, a/c system and units, main electrical disconnect and panel; I don't inspect - roofs, structure, pool, etc., whatever you do, or do not, inspect ... those will give us items to discuss.

[Dom D'Agostino]

Even though, apparently, Dom and Aaron do not do "condo inspections" :rolleyes: , they are welcome to input their thoughts and ideas.



Excuse me, but nowhere in any reply or post did I make such a statement.

You asked specific questions, and made specific statements, and I answered.

Apparently, my answer isn't to your liking. and I'm O.K. with that. "Different strokes...", as they say.

I understand what I inspect, and what I tell my clients. If they don't know what a condo is, or what they're buying, I'll point them in the right direction.

And I suggest you start a new thread if you want to discuss what's inspected in a "condo" or other dwelling.

Dom.

[Aaron Miller]

I understand what I inspect, and what I tell my clients.


Dom:

Me too. Jerry must have a real doozie of a problem when it's a condo though.

Aaron:D

[Jerry Peck]

You asked specific questions, and made specific statements, and I answered.

Dom (and Aaron),

No, neither of you answered the question.

Thus the question STILL stands.

Are you both AFRAID to answer the question?

If not, yes, "*IF NOT* - as in 'you are not afraid to answer the question' ... then list what you inspect when you go to (if you go to) inspect a "condo".

SIMPLE QUESTION ... STILL NOT ANSWERED.

[Aaron Miller]

No, neither of you answered the question.

Thus the question STILL stands.

Are you both AFRAID to answer the question?


Afraid, me? And, in fact I did answer your questions. One of them, anyway.


and yes, I inspect them all

So what's left unanswered, oh tenacious tormentor?

Aaron:D

[Jerry Peck]

So what's left unanswered, oh tenacious tormentor?

This one oh dancing with the stars partner of Dom ...


Okay, then how do you know *what to inspect*?

Dom (and Aaron),

You are stating that a condo is not defined, I am asking you what your definition is, i.e., what would you, do you, inspect when you do a condo inspection.

It really is a simple question.

Are you willing to allow you dancing partner to rest while you answer that simple question, or will you keep dancing around it?

A simple question with a simple answer, yet neither of you are forthcoming to provide even the slightest answer in that direction, so ... the question STILL STANDS: (underlining and bold has been added for highlighting purposes)

Okay, then how do you know *what to inspect*?

Dom (and Aaron),

You are stating that a condo is not defined, I am asking you what your definition is, i.e., what would you, do you, inspect when you do a condo inspection.

It really is a simple question.

This is post #43 in this thread, do you think we can reach 100 posts and you and Dom STILL not answering the question?

[Markus Keller]

I have to walk the dog the catch the train to pick-up my truck from the shop. Jerry, when I have more time, tonight or in the morning, I will answer your question.
Markus

[Aaron Miller]

ECJ:

Dom is not my partner, and it is you who are doing the dancing.

I know it's tough when you find yourself from time to time at the end of the same damn string by which you often dangle the rest of us. Wiggle as you might you just can't seem to get loose from the wrong comment that you made. Once it's said, you just can't get it back. It's out there for everyone to see. B-u-m-m-e-r.

I really, really would like to help you out of your current predicament, but alas cannot. At least not at my own expense. Hang in there a little longer though and someone I'm sure will come along and help you with this condo thing. It just can't be me. I cannot be having discussions with a plans examiner over matters of common ownership.

Except maybe that we both own this: condos are not in the IBC. Search as you will, the word will just not be extruded from the text. Extrapolation and cunning word wizardry notwithstanding, it just does not live in that book. Not that one or the IRC or any of them. It is as if the ICC (Interdenominational Chapter of Condolessness) has purposelessly set itself against you. They have veritably shamed you by not heeding your intent to will the word into their holy runes. Kudos to them!

TaTa,

Aaron:eek:

[Jerry Peck]

Aaron,

Yet ANOTHER post NOT answering the question (see my post, post #43 of this thread, for that repeatedly asked question).

I can see you are trying to hit more than 100 posts before you will answer that question.

[David Banks]

I refuse to have my Condo 50 Amp thread used like this! :)

[Jerry Peck]

I refuse to have my Condo 50 Amp thread used like this! :)

David,

That was not a condo you inspected, just ask Dom and Aaron. ;)

[Aaron Miller]

I can see you are trying to hit more than 100 posts before you will answer that question.


ECJ:

For a man with in excess of 4700 posts on this forum you should not through that particular brick.



I refuse to have my Condo 50 Amp thread used like this!


David:

I aplogize for hijacking your thread in this fashion. I could not, nor could Dom, resist the opportunity to thrash ECJ about a bit - all in fun, so don't take it too serious.

Aaron:cool:

[Jerry Peck]

I can see you are trying to hit more than 100 posts before you will answer that question.


ECJ:

For a man with in excess of 4700 posts on this forum you should not through that particular brick.

... and the last 50+ posts of mine :p have been trying to get you to answer that simple question I keep asking ...

By the way ... it is not "through" it is "throw" ... just bringing it to your attention. :D

[Russel Ray]

In October 2006, I inspected a condo that had 4,603 square feet, a roof, nothing on any side except vast views of the Pacific Ocean, Tijuana, San Diego Bay, the Zoo, Sea World, La Jolla, Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Phoenix, Denver, El Paso, San Antonio, Miami, Atlanta, New York City, well--you get the idea--and 32 floors of condos below it. Was that really a townhome? I screwed that one up.

When I was in college, one of my friends lived in a townhome. His differentiation between townhome and condo was that the townhome had a back yard and a front yard where his two kids could play, and a condo had neighbors whose kids were banging on the walls at all hours of the day. Hmmmmmm. I like his definitions.

[Aaron Miller]

By the way ... it is not "through" it is "throw" ... just bringing it to your attention. :D


That's the Hann's spell checker on hiatus as usual. Could also have been half past the second Chardonnay . . . I knew exactly what I meant.



... and the last 50+ posts of mine :p have been trying to get you to answer that simple question I keep asking ...



So, then I was assisting you with your ever-burgeoning post pile. I was also creating activity on the Hann's forum for his profit and amusement. Productivity!

Condo-lences,

Aaron:D

[Jerry Peck]

Aaron,

You are now at post #52, and, yet again ...


Aaron,

Yet ANOTHER post NOT answering the question (see my post, post #43 of this thread, for that repeatedly asked question).

I can see you are trying to hit more than 100 posts before you will answer that question.

[Aaron Miller]

now at post #52


EveryCondo'sinmyJurisdiction:

See how that works? Almost like gravitational accretion. Gaseous matter growing exponentially.

It's a Flah-idyan thing.

Aaron

[Jerry Peck]

Aaron,

This is so simple it is pathetic ... you've now taken this to #54 posts and STILL not answered that simple question.

Are you unable to answer it? (Lack of knowledge, etc.?)

Unwilling to answer it and show ignorance? (Lack of knowledge, etc.?)

If you need to know, there are many here who can help you understand it.

[Dom D'Agostino]

Aaron,

This is so simple it is pathetic ... you've now taken this to #54 posts and STILL not answered that simple question.

Are you unable to answer it? (Lack of knowledge, etc.?)

Unwilling to answer it and show ignorance? (Lack of knowledge, etc.?)

If you need to know, there are many here who can help you understand it.


And it just eats you up inside, doesn't it Jerry?

:)

[Aaron Miller]

This is so simple it is pathetic ... Lack of . . . ignorance . . . can help you understand it.


ECJ:

I agree.

As I sit
And ponder life
Inside my condominium
Around me swirls
Contentious strife
Searching for the Idiom
That tells us all
Short, tall and small
From Einstein to hominian
That buildings owned
By each and all mean
Nothing in Floridian.

Aaron:eek:

[Markus Keller]

Alright, I can't believe I'm going to set myself up for one of Jerry's cut&paste Quote-a-slams but here it goes.
A condo is a SF, in my opinion, in the eyes of local muni's and of course lenders. I inspect condo's based on res code not IBC. To inspect the condo unit under the building code would most likely be unreasonable and place an undue burden on sellers/buyers. There are of course various exceptions to this. One obvious one would be the required self-closer on a condo unit entry door under the high-rise code.
I know there has been discussion about modifying our HI law to add specific language regarding condo insp. I do not know where that is at right now.
I also know that there are some local HI who don't do condo's at all because of perceived liability and others who do condo's but ONLY look at what is within the actual unit.
So to get to your question, Jerry.
For the condo insp I inspect all the obvious items within the confines of the condo unit itself, just like a normal SF. I trust as HI we can agree we pretty much know what that entails.
Now I will detail some of the differences.
I check the perimeter walls and ceilings for water intrusion,etc. (just like a house). Not because it is my client's responsibility (like in a house) but because intrusions in those areas can affect my client's position. Such intrusions are normally the responsibility of the condo assoc or owners above. Those parties would be responsible for paying repairs etc. I will provide two examples.
Example 1- small condo bldg. - damaged drywall in bedroom at top of window; mortar wash out in same location at exterior; put it in the report; condo assoc agreed to repair in writing
Example 2- high rise condo - I asked client if parking spots were included in the purchase, he stated yes. I asked if we could go see so I could verify conditions. Agents and buyers were stunned, neither had ever heard of that. I inspected the 2 parking spots. Spalling concrete at the ceiling from a water leak. Client was ecstatic that I inspected this and his wife's expensive car wasn't going to get damaged. (Yes, I am blowing my own horn) condo assoc agreed to repair in writing
My point is that I also inspect areas of the building that my client will normally encounter through daily activity. Such as stairway conditions, their storage room (another story), roof top decks, etc. Part of any HI insp is to provide info about a property to protect a client (and their interests) (definition of that is another thread).
Unless I find adverse conditions, I do not comment on the overall building. Comments, etc are confined to issues that could create problems for my client.
I have language in both my contract and condo insp report regarding this.
If you are going to attempt to hold a condo unit owner to the IBC, rather than the IRC, Jerry then I think you are attempting to hold a SF condo owner to a higher standard than is warranted.
Fire away.
Markus

[Aaron Miller]

Fire away.


Markus:

Duck.

Aaron;)

[Jerry Peck]

In October 2006, I inspected a condo


I inspect condo's

So, you and Russel are the only ones who inspect condos? :cool:

According to Aaron condos don't even exist. :D


If you are going to attempt to hold a condo unit owner to the IBC, rather than the IRC, Jerry then I think you are attempting to hold a SF condo owner to a higher standard than is warranted.

Actually, inspecting a condo as a single-family house or as a townhouse holds the condo to a higher standard than what it was built to. You could be reporting 'problems' which do not even exist, i.e., something which is incorrect for a townhouse might be correct for a condo.

You listed many things which you inspect which are outside the scope of a condo, kudos to you for doing all of that. Many of the things you stated you inspected are not part of the condo, but are part of the condo building, which you really should be excluding from your condo inspections.

I did not inspect condo roofs per se, however, while on the roof looking at the a/c condenser unit(s) I would note and include in my report obvious roof problems.

Likewise, I did not inspect stairs either, but would include obvious problems with them if I used the stairs.

With condo inspections, anything outside the condo is not part of the condo, nor should it be part of the condo inspection, it is common properly, be careful about saying the you 'inspected it', least you be held to that statement later should something bad happen.

That was painless, wasn't it? :)

Of course, you did not use the specificity I was asking for as to what you inspect, but you did include a general scope, which included many items outside of the condo.

[Aaron Miller]

According to Aaron condos don't even exist.



which included many items outside of the condo.

ECJ:

First of all, there cannot be an outside of a nonexistent entity. It has no form or location and therefore cannot have either an inside or an outside. But, of course, you buy into (and made) the wrong statement that I am of the opinion that condos do not exist. I am not of that opinion. They do exist. On paper only. Just not on any paper the ICC has published.

As for the buildings themselves that many folks, such as you, refer to as condos, they can be of various types, as I have repeatedly mentioned. The only prerequisite for "condoism" is that it is owned in common by several tenants. Period. You cannot improve on that statement. You can also not logically or successfully refute it. It stands on its own as a truism provable through any number of reputable sources.

So then, assuming that condos do exist, and I agree that they do, describe to me the exact type of structure that we are considering and I will be happy to explain if I inspect it and, if I do, how I go about inspecting it. Leave the terms "condo" and "condominium" out of the discussion and we will communicate. Put them back in there where they don't belong in a discussion of building construction or building usage types, and we will be back to shoveling nonsense. Condo is not a building type, but an ownership type. Like it or not, that is just how it is. Admit it . . . or not. Suit yourself.

We can go on like this for an eternity. You in d-e-e-p denial; I attempting to save the drowning you. The stick you must grasp in order to be pulled ashore is logic. Avoid it and you will remain asea; veritably awash in the false notion that mere legal ownership definitions are corporeal. They are intangible on a good day.

Aaron:D

[Jerry Peck]

Aaron (and Dom),

I'm a perspective client, I call and tell you that I am buying a "condo" on the 2nd floor in a 4 story "condo building", you agree to inspect it.


So then, assuming that condos do exist, and I agree that they do, describe to me the exact type of structure that we are considering and I will be happy to explain if I inspect it and, if I do, how I go about inspecting it. Leave the terms "condo" and "condominium" out of the discussion and we will communicate.

I already did that (see my quote above), and the term "condo" is there to show my ownership, which you stated it does.

If it will make you feel any better about yourself, read it this way:

"I am buying a "dwelling unit" on the 2nd floor in a 4 story "dwelling unit building" ", also known as a 'R-2 Occupancy building'.

[Aaron Miller]

"I am buying a "dwelling unit" on the 2nd floor in a 4 story "dwelling unit building" ", also known as a 'R-2 Occupancy building'."

ECJ:

OK. It's a 4-story building. This makes it a commercial inspection. I do not perform commercial inspections.

Simple enough?

Aaron:D

[Jerry Peck]

OK. It's a 4-story building. This makes it a commercial inspection. I do not perform commercial inspections.

TexasHeatStrokedAaron,

It's not "a commercial inspection", it is a "residential inspection of a dwelling unit", as I pointed out.


known as a 'R-2 Occupancy building'.

R-2, in case you did not know, is not "commercial" it is "residential", it is in the "International BUILDING Code", I don't see anything in there which says it is the "International COMMERCIAL Code" ... I'm sure, though, that you will pecker your way into trying to define it as a "commercial" code, maybe it the "miller" in you which does not allow you to see things clearly - maybe all that "milling" dust in the air?

From the 2006 IBC. (underlining is mine)

- 101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.

- - Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code. (Jerry's note: "DETACHED" one- and two-family dwellings AND "townhouses" have their own code, OTHER RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES are included in this code.)

[Brandon Chew]

I may come to regret jumping into the middle of this bout of message board testiculation, but here are my two cents.

A condominium is a form of ownership, not a physical structure. Examples of other typical forms are sole-ownership, joint tenancy (and variations on that theme) and cooperative. Definitions of these terms will be found in the real property laws of each individual state. In common usage, people often use the term "condo" or "condominium" to refer to physical structures, usually to owner-occupied apartments (as opposed to leased apartments) because this is most common type of structure that uses this type of ownership, but that usage of the term is not legally or technically correct.

A townhouse is a physical structure which is defined in the IRC. It is possible for a building to be constructed as a townhouse and have each unit inside it owned as a condominium. Although not common or widespread, one- and two-family detached dwellings located within a larger development can also be owned as condominiums. Condominium ownership is not limited to only dwelling units, but can apply to non-residential uses and occupancies as well. Owner-occupied (as opposed to leased) office buildings and shopping centers are some examples where this type of ownership may be found.

If the physical structure meets the definitions of one-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, or townhouse, AND it is no more than three stories in height above grade, AND if each dwelling unit has a separate means of egress, then I inspect that structure (and its accessory structures) using the IRC as my reference. Otherwise I would use the IBC.

This thread reminds me of similar arguments being made on this message board about the use of the term "sub panel" and the problems that arise when slang is substituted for proper terminology.

[Jerry Peck]

Brandon,

I was just going to ask Aaron this, but maybe you can explain it:

Why would Aaron want to inspect a residential dwelling unit as a "commercial inspection"?

Would you do that? I'm at a loss to understand him on this.

Maybe you can shed some light on it, thanks.

[Aaron Miller]

shed some light


Sorry ECJ, had to go work a bit. I was in a hurry this morning, so let me clarify my statement. It's down to terminology again. Always comes down to that, doesn't it? My E&O carrier distinguishes residential from commercial by which code applies: IRC or IBC. Thus, if IBC applies, to my insurance carrier at least, it is commercial. I don't wish to pay the additional money for nothing that they charge in order to pontificate to the tune of IBC.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, I have no IBC certification. In my eyes then, I'm not competent to do those types of inspections. At the very least, I cannot illustrate to anyone else that I am qualified.

As far as how I would approach those inspections, if I did them, for dwelling units with separate egress in 4-story or more: IBC. 3-story or less, IRC. Additionally, I would inspect only the portion of the building that the HOA was not responsible for. Otherwise you would have to inspect the whole damned thing; all common areas, pools, and all of the buildings.

The problem there lies in what the HOA is responsible for. Without reading and interpreting the HOA agreement I could not know. I am not an attorney and prefer not to pretend to be one. Document perusal is done at $250 per hour, one hour minimum, if I don't have to consult an attorney. "Condo" dwellers, as you would call them, would drop like flies during the fee quote.

Why would I bother?:confused:

Aaron

[Jerry Peck]

My E&O carrier distinguishes residential from commercial by which code applies: IRC or IBC. Thus, if IBC applies, to my insurance carrier at least, it is commercial. I don't wish to pay the additional money for nothing that they charge in order to pontificate to the tune of IBC.

Having never carried E&O, I could inspect what I wanted to how I wanted to, and did not have to try to satisfy anyone except for me and my clients, much less an in$urance agent or in$urance company. GL, yes, but not E&O, and GL did not care ($2 million GL coverage)


Additionally, I would inspect only the portion of the building that the HOA was not responsible for. Otherwise you would have to inspect the whole damned thing; all common areas, pools, and all of the buildings.

Absolutely agree with that.


The problem there lies in what the HOA is responsible for. Without reading and interpreting the HOA agreement I could not know.

"Condo" dwellers, as you would call them, would drop like flies during the fee quote.

I had no problem understanding what was their and what was the COA (not HOA for "Home Owners Association), Condominium Owners Association.

Regarding prices (for anything) I guess it depends on the level of condos you inspect.

I have inspected many smaller ones (the typical one and two bedroom condo), however, I have also inspected many, many large ones, upward to around 10,000 sf (don't remember the size of the largest ones). Some consisted of the entire floor (like Russel described, only the view was the Atlantic Ocean instead of the Pacific Ocean).

Please note, however, that even though the typical "condo" is built under the IBC, they are still "residential" dwelling units.

I'll be gone all weekend in our new (new-to-us) 36 ft motor home, using it for the first time and getting things set up as we want, so I'm not bringing my notebook computer (will not have time for it), I won't be able to check back until Sunday afternoon or night. Have a good weekend.

[Aaron Miller]

Having never carried E&O


Me too, until the moron lawyers that comprise our legislature and licensing authority required it last year.

I'm ready to take bets on the motor home. With GWB gas prices continuing to rise astronomically, I give it 1 year before it's on blocks or on the auction block . . .

Have a good trip in your rolling condo,

Aaron:rolleyes:

[Markus Keller]

Well, I don't know how I got through that so unscathed. Jerry clearly has his sights set on Aaron.
I appreciate the advice about verbiage Jerry and apologize for my sloppy use of the 'inspect' word in my post. I am actually quite careful about how I use it in my reports. I understand the potential ramifications.
I realize that looking at the deeded parking spots is more than most would do, however I believe it to be necessary. It's a no brainer for me to look at the outside of the wall if the inside is damaged from apparent water infil. What am I going to do, tell the client to have a 'licensed professional' come out? Clearly for some things it is warranted for others it's just a cop out.
As far as the rest of this thread, I have to agree with Aaron and Brandon. I think Jerry mis-stepped in the beginning and then didn't want to back out of it. All these detailed questions about specific points attempt to draw away from the overall issue.
Condo is a 'form' of ownership and occupancy status (I own, I'm not just some renter), not a form of construction. Even though, REA, marketers and developers would like everyone to believe otherwise.
Sorry for the delayed participation the last few days. I've actually been busy for a change lately.
Have a nice weekend everyone.

[Markus Keller]

Almost forgot, if gas wasn't 4.09 a gallon I'd be jealous of Jerry's 36' er. My cousins had a huge Winnebago when we were kids. Family outings in that thing we so much fun. Driving, singing, camping, BBQ's all that hokey stuff.
I think I'll stick to my motorcycles for now.

[Russel Ray]

I think I'll stick to my motorcycles for now.
I sometimes do DRIVEBY inspections on my motorcycle--Yamaha 1100 Virago. I consider it my condo, er, I mean my Shuttlecraft.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry clearly has his sights set on Aaron.


No, but Aaron (and Dom) are the only ones professing what they are professing, Brandon is "explaining" the terms we've already agreed on.


I think Jerry mis-stepped in the beginning and then didn't want to back out of it.

I believe, if you follow this thread through to its end, you will likely change your mind.

[Jerry Peck]

Aaron, (Dom seems to have stepped back off the stage here)

I've decided not to buy that condo, but I've found another one.

This "dwelling unit" is in a 2 story building, there are three units on each floor, I've buying an end unit which encompasses one entire end of the second floor.

Will you inspect it?

[Dom D'Agostino]

... (Dom seems to have stepped back off the stage here)



Nope, never left.

As I stated previously, I won't engage in another one of your ping-pong matches, as you can never let someone else be right.

Dom.

[Jerry Peck]

you can never let someone else be right.

Dom,

When others are right, and I do state I am wrong, and I do take my 40 lashes with a wet noodle and go to my corner ... I just don't do that when they are the one 'not right' - no need to.

[Markus Keller]

03 BMW k12RS - cream puff
74 Honda 360 - favorite nostalgia from my teen years
If it weren't for the poor business perception and need of a ladder, I'd ride the either for insp

[Russel Ray]

74 Honda 360 - favorite nostalgia from my teen years
That's the one that got me hooked on motorcycles. My friend had one and took me for a ride. We went out to the caliche pits to do donuts and he laid it over. I had caliche all up and down my leg, side, and arm. It was the coolest. I got a motorcycle that Christmas. Ah, yes, the good ol' macho days.

[Aaron Miller]

Will you inspect it?

ECJ:

I don't do inspections for folks who live in RVs. It could be hard to collect from them in the future. Besides the fumes are offending.


I've decided not to buy that condo, but I've found another one.


I thought we were finished with that word. The general consensus was, is, that the word is not germane to this discussion.


This "dwelling unit" is in a 2 story building, there are three units on each floor, I've buying an end unit which encompasses one entire end of the second floor.


Assuming that your taste for dwelling arrangements is not tantamount to that of your road-sharing proclivities I will presume that the three units on each floor, six in all, are owned by six separate entities. That would make this a six-family dwelling. God forbid they should all be RV-owning relatives of yours. How big is that parking lot?

I only inspect one- and two-family dwellings. All else lies in the realm of "commercial" as per my E&O carrier to whom the State of Texas in its infinite wisdom says I must defer. And, at the risk of repeating myself in a self-deprecating fashion, I have no IBC credentials and am not competent to inspect "commercial" or non-IRC-defined buildings.

How was your recent stroll in your new road-blocker? Pricey, I would guess. Let's see, is that the 6 or the 8-gallon per mile model? Doing your part for global warming I gather. Red state is as red state does.

Did you take along your handgun arsenal to scare the foreign tourists?

:o Aaron

[Markus Keller]

Aaron, even though I agree with you (laughing) it isn't nice to tease Jerry like that. The RV is necessary so that he doesn't move any faster than most of the state's population.
On a business note ... does Texas define anything over 2 units as non-res?
1-4 units is considered Res here in IL. Our HI license covers 1-4 units. For mortgage, (tax), garbage p/u, etc. 1-4 units is Res in most towns.
Above 4 res units is considered commercial and not covered under current HI statute. No specific license required that I am aware of. Idea being that in commercial transactions parties are deemed to know what they are doing.

[Mike Schulz]

Just like everyone knows what a sub-panel is, they know what a condo is............so quit "dwelling" on the subject.:p

I have thought of putting a trailer on my Road King before. But putting that extra weight with ladders and such the bike would probably only get 30 some miles to the gallon.
Not worth not having the A/C in the summer.;)

[Aaron Miller]

does Texas define anything over 2 units as non-res?

Markus:

Texas is a terribly and significantly phuqued-up place. As a native resident I can attest to the fact that Austin, the seat of government here, is about a screwed up a place as there is. Case in point, GW Bush held court there for years before jamming it to the entire nation for the past 7.5 annual miseries. So, who knows exactly what they define or how they define it? I can only serve the newest master in the chain of overlords set to besiege me as a home inspector.

The god-damned E&O insurer. E&O sucks and so do the providers of it. I once had to sue my (past)carrier for performance. Make one little misstep with these assholes and they will deny even knowing you. So, if they see 1- and 2-family as the only game for me to play, who am I to argue with that?

Besides, how many people in Dallas are willing to pay nearly $400 to have their 800 s.f. converted apartment or multifamily individual dwelling unit inspected?

Tease Jerry? Who, me? I'm just a merry condottiere (envision a smoldering spell checker here). It comes with the territory.

Aaron:D

[Jerry Peck]

I thought we were finished with that word. The general consensus was, is, that the word is not germane to this discussion.

That word ("condo") is as germane to this discussion as (as Brandon pointed out) "main panel", "sub panel", etc. are to any discussion on electrical panels, some insist on using those terms as 'easily recognizable', I chose to use "that word" for the same reason, even though we have all agree that it is not a 'code identified type of building', then, I used "dwelling unit" as that is a 'code identified word'.


That would make this a six-family dwelling.

I only inspect one- and two-family dwellings.

Okay, I'll try it again within a smaller context.

The "dwelling unit" I want to have inspected is (I am looking at two of them):

a) One is in a two story building, I will be buying the second floor unit, someone else will own the first floor unit.

b) The other is also a two story building, however, these are up/down two story units, I will be buying one unit and someone else owns the other unit.

Will you inspect them?


How was your recent stroll in your new road-blocker? Pricey, I would guess. Let's see, is that the 6 or the 8-gallon per mile model?

We spend as much for fuel as anyone who owns a decent size boat, or flies a small airplane, except that I can 'land' anywhere, our motor home averages 8 gallons per hour (at 60 mph). :D

My brother-in-law and his wife have small boat (about 16 feet) which averages 4-5 gph, a larger boat will average about 8 gph, larger ones (comparable in size to our motor home) will use even more.

Be that as it may, least we not get distracted - will you inspect either, or both, of the "dwelling units" I am now looking at?

[William Coleman]

Greetings,
Still in Class here in In Jacksonville, NC. Last class is tonight and it has been very interesting. Don't KNOW everything yet, but I enjoy this forum. Grandmother told me years ago, "be silent until you have something important to contribute to the conversation". Mother also taught us, "It is far better to be thought IGNORANT, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Learning a lot in here and taking notes.....:)
Bill

[Steve Lowery]

(stay low Bill. you don't want to be # 100. there there be monsters)

[Aaron Miller]

be silent until you have something important to contribute


William:

If we all did that, it would not be much of a forum . . . just East Coast Jerry and the Hann in the Sky . . .

Aaron:D

[Bob Elliott]

Stepping in at the end here but I see confusion over what a Condo is.
A condominium is a MDU or Multiple Dwelling unit.
Individual ownership is allowed , but Condominium board rules put into place must be followed or fines can be levied.
Common areas are mutual responsibility with percentage of responsibility decided by once again by the board of directors which is elected and holds public meetings once a month.(In Illinois by law)
Our state is the only one where your property can be foreclosed and sold for non payment of assesments.
They do not call me Condo Bob for nothing...:)
Coop means you own a share of the entire building.Just thought I would bring that into play since this form of ownership is very common in New York from what I here.
Any , I just thought I would add my two cents.
I have a small blog on my site that deals with Condo issues.
Most all of them have 100 amp service when rehabed by the way, though I do see 60 amp service and fuses on occasion.
I am not a code Inspector, so I do not carry my palm up or a blind mans cane.:)

[Jerry Peck]

Okay, I'll try it again within a smaller context.

The "dwelling unit" I want to have inspected is (I am looking at two of them):

a) One is in a two story building, I will be buying the second floor unit, someone else will own the first floor unit.

b) The other is also a two story building, however, these are up/down two story units, I will be buying one unit and someone else owns the other unit.

Will you inspect them?

Aaron,

... and your answer is?

[Mike Schulz]

Jerry,
He doesn't have one. He likes to play with words and raise hairs.

[Russel Ray]

Our state is the only one where your property can be foreclosed and sold for non payment of assesments.
Not true. California also allows it. I think I told you that on some other forum somewhere.

[Bob Elliott]

Hi Russ
Thought you were not sure.
We did touch on it briefly last week.
I had just read it in the Chicago Tribune.Thought it was strange as Associations are not charities.

[Aaron Miller]

within a smaller context



The "dwelling unit" I want to have inspected is (I am looking at two of them)


ECJ:

Do you mean A and B (both), or A or B (one or the other)?

Just kidding, doesn't matter. I would inspect either of these, if I was getting paid to do it. I really wanted to dance around this question a little longer, but, it's face the music time, and I'm ready as I'm gonna get.

Shoot!:)

Aaron

[Jerry Peck]

My E&O carrier distinguishes residential from commercial by which code applies: IRC or IBC. Thus, if IBC applies, to my insurance carrier at least, it is commercial. I don't wish to pay the additional money for nothing that they charge in order to pontificate to the tune of IBC.


I only inspect one- and two-family dwellings. All else lies in the realm of "commercial" as per my E&O carrier to whom the State of Texas in its infinite wisdom says I must defer. And, at the risk of repeating myself in a self-deprecating fashion, I have no IBC credentials and am not competent to inspect "commercial" or non-IRC-defined buildings.


Do you mean A and B (both), or A or B (one or the other)?

Just kidding, doesn't matter. I would inspect either of these, if I was getting paid to do it.

Aaron,

Your last answer contradicts you first two answers.

*ALL* of those units I've described are covered under the IBC, not the IRC.

[Aaron Miller]

ECJ:

I had to give you an in somewhere in this thread! Should I just retract my last statement, by claim of insanity (which few on this forum would protest), and continue on ad infinitum dancing around your pointless questions?

I don't even remember now what this thing was all about. Oh yeah, a 50-amp breaker . . . Well, even if these dwelling units are IBC and not IRC, I would not inspect the distribution panels, especially if they are FPE. Those are NEC, and my homeowners carrier doesn't insure autos that are NEC compliant, only UAW an ASAE. It's true I AST'M about it and he said AOK. My E&O guy sent up an SOS and I may soon be SOL with the TREC and the IRS.

Truth is, I will inspect just about anything from A to Z (with a rather long list of exceptions) in the land where the checks cash. What standard I use in those inspections depends on the circumstances at the time. Common sense never comes into play though, just the veritably endless model code alphabet.

Confession is good for the soul,:o

Aaron

[David Banks]

AMEN!

[Markus Keller]

What? Aaron, I've read that post numerous times now and still don't know what the hell it means. There is so much forward peddling, back peddling and side to side swaying it makes me dizzy.
Is that post in mild code?
More importantly, you mention you won't inspect the distribution panels. Are you saying you don't, won't, can't take the panel cover off and look inside to see if things are generally kosher?
Please don't tell me it's because you're not a licensed electrician. As much as I respect your commentary on this board, I would see that as a copout.
Please explain. Am I getting your post wrong?

[Victor DaGraca]

Just because I want to see this thread go to 100......

I include these words on my "condo" reports.
Bold, Italicized, and highlighted.

Anyone see any problems?



"The residential dwelling unit appeared to be part of a complex that is managed, and maintained by a "Home Owners Association." Our inspection will be limited to a visual evaluation of the systems and components that are located within the dwelling unit inspected. The current condition of "Common Elements" such as, but not limited to; stairs, landings, porches, hallways, walks, balconies, decks, patios, pools, spas, recreational areas/equipment, elevators, utility metering, parking stalls/ports, building site condition, structural stability, drainage systems, and all common areas, are not considered to be part of this Inspection Report. Any comments made regarding same have been made for safety concerns or as a courtesy only, and should be addressed to the "Home Owner's Association" or their representative.

[Jerry Peck]

Just because I want to see this thread go to 100......

This is post #98 :D


I include these words on my "condo" reports.
Bold, Italicized, and highlighted.

Anyone see any problems?




"The residential dwelling unit appeared to be part of a complex that is managed, and maintained by a "Home Owners Association."

A "Home Owners Association" is typically different than a "Condominium Owners Association".

Many subdivisions, such as ours, have single-family homes and are under a general "Home Owners Association". In fact, our master subdivision has single-family homes and townhouses. The each townhouse subdivision has its own Home Owners Association, and the single-family homes like ours only has the 'Master Association".

Condominium buildings, on the other hand, have "Condominium Owners Association", which as different (typically) in that the "Condominium Owners Association" actually owns the building and all common areas, and the owners each just own their units.

A "Home Owners Association" typically does not own the individual townhouses or single-family units, the HOA just owns the common areas, and makes rules and regulations for the owners to abide by in order to keep the things looking good.

[Aaron Miller]

Anyone see any problems?

Victor:

Looks good to me, but Peck won't like it.


There is so much forward peddling, back peddling and side to side swaying it makes me dizzy.


Markus:

Me too.


AMEN!

David:

Ditto in spades.

Aaron:D Getting closer to 100 . . .

[Aaron Miller]

A "Home Owners Association" is typically different than a "Condominium Owners Association".


ECJ:

I vote for "dwelling unit owners association".

Aaron

Now, are we done?

[Russel Ray]

Just because I want to see this thread go to 100......

I include these words on my "condo" reports.
Bold, Italicized, and highlighted.

Anyone see any problems?



"The residential dwelling unit appeared to be part of a complex that is managed, and maintained by a "Home Owners Association." Our inspection will be limited to a visual evaluation of the systems and components that are located within the dwelling unit inspected. The current condition of "Common Elements" such as, but not limited to; stairs, landings, porches, hallways, walks, balconies, decks, patios, pools, spas, recreational areas/equipment, elevators, utility metering, parking stalls/ports, building site condition, structural stability, drainage systems, and all common areas, are not considered to be part of this Inspection Report. Any comments made regarding same have been made for safety concerns or as a courtesy only, and should be addressed to the "Home Owner's Association" or their representative.
I'll start the next 100.

I would delete "landings." It's part of "stairs" in my book. Jerry might have a different book, though. Anyway, it sounds like there's a landing pad for a helicopter or small plane.

[Russel Ray]

A "Home Owners Association" is typically different than a "Condominium Owners Association".

Many subdivisions, such as ours, have single-family homes and are under a general "Home Owners Association". In fact, our master subdivision has single-family homes and townhouses. The each townhouse subdivision has its own Home Owners Association, and the single-family homes like ours only has the 'Master Association".

Condominium buildings, on the other hand, have "Condominium Owners Association", which as different (typically) in that the "Condominium Owners Association" actually owns the building and all common areas, and the owners each just own their units.

A "Home Owners Association" typically does not own the individual townhouses or single-family units, the HOA just owns the common areas, and makes rules and regulations for the owners to abide by in order to keep the things looking good.[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]
Out in my neck of the woods, they all seem to be "Homeowners' Associations" or "HOA." Never have heard of a COA. What they own is left up to their bylaws.

Some own the common grounds and just charge a small monthly fee to maintain it, usually no more than $125 a month.

Some own some of the buildings, and charge a higher fee to maintain it, usually no more than $250 a month.

Some own people who work for the Homeowners' Association, such as 24-hour security service, the car parking service, the door openers, the elevator button pushers, the cleaning service, etc. Usually these are in the large towers, mostly downtown but also in the University Towne Center area. Some of them charge up to $1,500 a month for all those door openers and button pushers.

The definition of "homes" is also left to the bylaws of the HOA. Some homes are defined as condominiums, such as the larger towers. Some homes are defined as townhomes. Some homes in some of the outlying, prestigious complexes include condominiums, townhomes, single-family attached, and even single-family detached. For example, the Lake Helix gated community is single-family detached homes surrounding Lake Helix, but their HOA dues are expensive because they take care of the "homes" as well as common areas.

[Mike Schulz]

I own a lake front property and it is a gated community. There is a POA (property owners association).
Funny thing is I don't have a home on it "hence the word property". Joking aside the majority of the lots have homes but they call it "POA".

[Aaron Miller]

I own a lake front property and it is a gated community. There is a POA (property owners association).
Funny thing is I don't have a home on it "hence the word property". Joking aside the majority of the lots have homes but they call it "POA".

Mike:

East Coast Jerry would refer to what you have there as a condominium latere, or for you English speakers, latent condominium. It is therefore subject to the provisions as set forth in Jerry's favorite primer, the IBC. That is, the Idiot's Bible of Condominiums.

Aaron:D

[Russel Ray]

I thought IBC was root beer.

[Harvey Hempelstern]

With "condos", all owners own the building collectively.

Not true.

They own their own unit, individually. Collectively, they only own the exterior, grounds, and common areas.

[Harvey Hempelstern]

Condo today with 50 Amp Main in utility room. All units were 50 Amps.
Large complex with 4 units in each building. I know NEC says 100 amp minimum for one family dwellings. Is condo considered one family? I seem to remember but can not find there is something about other than one family installations require at least 60 Amps.
Any suggestions for write up on this 50 Amp-main in condo?

Here is where I think Mr. Peck has made his error.

He has confused "dwelling" with "dwelling unit". While he has properly defined a "dwelling unit", in which a condominium would fall under....he has missed the fact that the NEC requires 100 Amps for a "one-family dwelling" (230.79(C)).

By definition, a "dwelling unit" can be as small as one room and a 100-amp requirement in such cases would be silly.

The IBC defines a "dwelling" as "a building that contains one or two dwelling units."

A condo unit does not qualify as a "dwelling" and is not required to have 100 amps of service. It cannot be considered a "building" since it is only the air space and floor coverings therein that the tenant owns, individually. The roof, exterior, common areas, etc...are a part of the building (collectively owned) and not a part of the condo unit, individually owned.

[David Banks]

Here is where I think Mr. Peck has made his error.

He has confused "dwelling" with "dwelling unit". While he has properly defined a "dwelling unit", in which a condominium would fall under....he has missed the fact that the NEC requires 100 Amps for a "one-family dwelling" (230.79(C)).

By definition, a "dwelling unit" can be as small as one room and a 100-amp requirement in such cases would be silly.

The IBC defines a "dwelling" as "a building that contains one or two dwelling units."

A condo unit does not qualify as a "dwelling" and is not required to have 100 amps of service. It cannot be considered a "building" since it is only the air space and floor coverings therein that the tenant owns, individually. The roof, exterior, common areas, etc...are a part of the building (collectively owned) and not a part of the condo unit, individually owned.

Harvey. A little late and a dollar short.

erry Peck
Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ormond Beach, Florida
Posts: 4,816

Re: Condo 50 Amp Main
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Banks
Thanks Jerry.
IRC 2003 E3502.1........... For one family dwellings, the ratings of the ungrounded conductors shall be not less than 100 amperes,3 wire.
For all other installations, the rating of the ungrounded conductors shall not be less than 60 amps.
Question. What do they mean by all other installations?


David,

I, and everyone else I can think of right now, have been reading that, and the matching NEC section, wrong for many years now.

From the 2006 IRC.

DWELLING
- Dwelling unit.
A single unit, providing complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation.


- One-family dwelling.
A building consisting solely of one dwelling unit.


- Two-family dwelling.
A building consisting solely of two dwelling units.


Also from the 2006 IRC:

- E3502.1 Ampacity of ungrounded conductors.
Ungrounded service conductors shall have an ampacity of not less than the load served. For one-family dwellings, the ampacity of the ungrounded conductors shall be not less than 100 amperes, 3 wire. For all other installations, the ampacity of the ungrounded conductors shall be not less than 60 amperes.

From the 2008 NEC: (underlining is mine)
- 230.79 Rating of Service Disconnecting Means.
- - The service disconnecting means shall have a rating not less than the calculated load to be carried, determined in accordance with Part III, IV, or V of Article 220, as applicable. In no case shall the rating be lower than specified in 230.79(A), (B), (C), or (D).
- - - (A) One-Circuit Installations. For installations to supply only limited loads of a single branch circuit, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 15 amperes.
- - - (B) Two-Circuit Installations. For installations consisting of not more than two 2-wire branch circuits, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 30 amperes.
- - - (C) One-Family Dwellings. For a one-family dwelling, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 100 amperes, 3-wire.
- - - (D) All Others. For all other installations, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 60 amperes.

Also from the 2008 NEC: (underlining is mine)
- Dwelling, One-Family. A building that consists solely of one dwelling unit.
- Dwelling, Two-Family. A building that consists solely of two dwelling units.
- Dwelling, Multifamily. A building that contains three or more dwelling units.
- Dwelling Unit. A single unit, providing complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation.

Everyone I know has been reading "one-family dwelling" as meaning "dwelling unit", but that is not the case.

We have been saying that all dwelling units require 100 amps minimum, however, by that definition *ONLY* "one-family dwellings" required 100 amps ... 'other than "one-family dwellings" ' (as defined) fall outside that requirement and fall under "For all other installations," requirement of not less than 60 amps.

HOLY COW!

All condo and apartments only require is a 60 amp service!

Somebody tell me I'm wrong on this ... please ... wake me up to what I'm reading incorrectly.


__________________
Jerry Peck
Construction Consultant
Ormond Beach, Florida

[Aaron Miller]

They own their own unit, individually.


Actually they only own the interior of there unit individually.



Mr. Peck
HOLY COW!


This is where "Mr. Peck" makes most of his errors . . .


All condo and apartments only require is a 60 amp service!

Somebody tell me I'm wrong on this ... please ... wake me up to what I'm reading incorrectly.


OK, here we go again. That's just plain wrong. (Deja vu)

Aaron:eek:

[Jerry Peck]

Not true.

They own their own unit, individually. Collectively, they only own the exterior, grounds, and common areas.

Not true. :D

They do not own the structure around their own unit, they own 'the space' within that unit ... paint-to-paint or drywall-to-drywall ... but they do not own any part of the structure encompassing their unit.

They are members of the Condominium Owners Association, and the Condominium Owners Association (by whatever name the association chooses to use) owns the building and all common areas (of which the building itself if a 'common area').

[Jerry Peck]

All condo and apartments only require is a 60 amp service!

Somebody tell me I'm wrong on this ... please ... wake me up to what I'm reading incorrectly.


OK, here we go again. That's just plain wrong. (Deja vu)

Aaron,

I'm open to you *showing me in the code* (the NEC) where I am wrong - I will be more than happy to say ... I thought I was wrong, but then I found out that I was right, so now I am not wrong anymore ... :cool:

[Aaron Miller]

I was wrong, but then I found out that I was right, so now I am not wrong anymore




There were WMD, then there weren't, and now there may still be


ECJ:

Just harassing you. Don't take it to heart . . .

Aaron;)

[Mike Schulz]

I was looking at the 06 changes for NC and found one place they mentioned the "c" word.


606.2.4 Fan shutdown by smoke detector.

In Groups I-1, I-2, I-3 and R, an air handling unit serving more than one floor shall be automatically shut down on detection of smoke by a duct type detector in the return from each floor level located upstream from connection to the common return.

Exceptions:

1. One-and two-family dwellings, adult and child day care in one-and two-family dwellings, individual apartments, condominiums, and townhouses.
2. Smoke detectors are not required in the return air system where the space served by the air distribution system is protected by a system of area smoke detectors in accordance with the North Carolina Building Code. The area smoke detector system shall comply with Section 606.4.

[Russel Ray]

Not true. :D

They do not own the structure around their own unit, they own 'the space' within that unit ... paint-to-paint or drywall-to-drywall ... but they do not own any part of the structure encompassing their unit.

They are members of the Condominium Owners Association, and the Condominium Owners Association (by whatever name the association chooses to use) owns the building and all common areas (of which the building itself if a 'common area').
It depends on the HOA bylaws out here. For example, if there are ten condominiums in a building, and each condominium is 1,000 square feet, for a total of 10,000 square feet, then sometimes each condominium owner will own 1/10 of the building. Such sometimes comes in handy when the roof of only one building out of 20 buildings has to be replaced; those ten owners would share 1/10 of the cost for just replacing the roof on that one building.

[Jerry Peck]

It depends on the HOA bylaws out here. For example, if there are ten condominiums in a building, and each condominium is 1,000 square feet, for a total of 10,000 square feet, then sometimes each condominium owner will own 1/10 of the building. Such sometimes comes in handy when the roof of only one building out of 20 buildings has to be replaced; those ten owners would share 1/10 of the cost for just replacing the roof on that one building.

Russel,

Typically what I've seen is that there is a master association under which all of the condo buildings would fall, with each condo building being its own condo association, thus, as you described, repairs to one building are paid for by those owners in that building, and repairs to common items are paid for by all condo associations, which includes all condo owners.

Having said that, there are also many projects I've seen in which there is only one condo association and it owns all buildings under its one big umbrella.

Not sure which method I like best, but, not living in a condo, it does not affect me. I can see advantages, and disadvantages, for each style of condominium setup - one covering all, or, one for each building and all buildings under one master association.

[Russel Ray]

Russel,

Typically what I've seen is that there is a master association under which all of the condo buildings would fall, with each condo building being its own condo association, thus, as you described, repairs to one building are paid for by those owners in that building, and repairs to common items are paid for by all condo associations, which includes all condo owners.

Having said that, there are also many projects I've seen in which there is only one condo association and it owns all buildings under its one big umbrella.

Not sure which method I like best, but, not living in a condo, it does not affect me. I can see advantages, and disadvantages, for each style of condominium setup - one covering all, or, one for each building and all buildings under one master association.
No "master association" here. Just one "Homeowners' Association." How they operate, what they own, what they maintain, etc., is determined by the bylaws of the Association.