Thread: Condo 50 Amp Main

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.

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?

Aaron

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

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.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

... (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.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

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.

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

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

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.

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?

Aaron

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.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

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).

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?

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

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Originally Posted by Bob Elliott

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

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.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

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.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

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.

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,

Aaron

AMEN!

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Victor DaGraca

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

This is post #98

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.

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 Getting closer to 100 . . .

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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.

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".

Originally Posted by 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".

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

I thought IBC was root beer.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by Harvey Hempelstern

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

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

Originally Posted by Harvey Hempelstern

Not true.

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

Not true.

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').

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

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 ...

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Not true.

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.

Originally Posted by Russel Ray

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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.