# Defining Detached



## Dennis (Jan 17, 2013)

I am going to working on a detached/attached garage with an apartment above.  The only means of attachment to the house is a deck.  The plumbing will tie into the house sewer and water lines so the inspector thinks it is attached.  I stated that power lines often go from the house to a detached structure and that does not change its status.  Anyway the state inspectors- both building and electrical agree with me but I was not satisfied with the why.

So I guess first off is the deck touching the garage making the building attached.  IMO, no but what say you.  And what about this plumbing statement-heard this second hand.

The reason is I want to put the service on the garage building not next to the house meter 75+ feet away.  Local building guy is the only one holding this up.


----------



## Mac (Jan 17, 2013)

If the deck is attached to both structures, that is a good argument that all three are attached.

Will the connection to the water & sewer be made inside the existing house or in the yard somewhere? Not sure it makes a difference but just curious.


----------



## Dennis (Jan 17, 2013)

Mac said:
			
		

> If the deck is attached to both structures, that is a good argument that all three are attached. Will the connection to the water & sewer be made inside the existing house or in the yard somewhere? Not sure it makes a difference but just curious.


  I assumed in the house but that really should not matter as I explain when electricity is fed from the house it does not change the status.Go one step further-- suppose instead of a deck it was a patio.  Does that change it?  Suppose they kept the deck 2 inches from the garage.  What that does is simply make the deck not as sturdy and makes it look crappy.  Is the deck really a question of fire spreading between the building?  Seems highly unlikely


----------



## Yankee (Jan 17, 2013)

I would not consider it attached. For me, it would need to share a roof &/or wall with the other part of the structure.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jan 17, 2013)

There are several things going on here that would need clarification; understand your state laws and local zoning ordinance may allow this regardless.

A deck IMHO does not make the structures attached; need a roof or at least a breezeway connecting the two buildings. See IBC for definitions and terms not given in the IRC;

*AREA, BUILDING.* The area included within surrounding _exterior walls_ (or _exterior walls_ and _fire walls_) exclusive of vent shafts and courts. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the _building area_ if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above.

An apartment as legally defined would require its own meter; here it's the POCO decision where it's located.

*E3601.6.2 Service disconnect location*. The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in bathrooms. Each occupant shall have access to the disconnect serving the dwelling unit in which they reside.

Then the matter of unfused line to the disconnects.

No issue with the plumbing code if both buildings on are the same lot:

*701.3 Separate sewer connection.* Every building having plumbing fixtures installed and intended for human habitation, occupancy or use on premises abutting on a street, alley or easement in which there is a _public_ _sewer_ shall have a separate connection with the _sewer_. Where located on the same lot, multiple buildings shall not be prohibited from connecting to a common _building sewer_ that connects to the _public_ _sewer_.

Francis


----------



## thekov (Jan 17, 2013)

I'm with Mac. If the deck uses both structures for support, then I would consider it attached and one structure. Plumbing and electrical considerations do not factor into the decision. My 2 cents.


----------



## steveray (Jan 17, 2013)

Attached as far as what code section? For frost protection? Seems certain......for fire seperation? .....maybe not.....


----------



## Dennis (Jan 17, 2013)

Thanks all-- I am soley looking at this in terms of installing the meter on the separate structure.  If the building were considered attached then the meter there would only be allowed one service drop to the building so we would have to install the meter & disconnect at the main service of the house.  We want a separate drop to the house.  The power company has no issue with it however they will not do it if the city won't allow it.


----------



## Dennis (Jan 17, 2013)

IMO this should be the electrical inspectors call since that is what is affected here.


----------



## cda (Jan 17, 2013)

You want one meter fo the house and one meter for the garage????


----------



## north star (Jan 17, 2013)

** = = **

Article 230.2, `08 NEC ?

*= * * =*


----------



## David Henderson (Jan 17, 2013)

200' deep lot with garage in back corner I want to run power and water to the garage so now it will become attached, that's friggin crazy. IMHO


----------



## Dennis (Jan 17, 2013)

north star said:
			
		

> ** = = **Article 230.2, `08 NEC ?
> 
> *= * * =*


Yes that is the article that will not allow multiple services if it is attached.



			
				David Henderson said:
			
		

> 200' deep lot with garage in back corner I want to run power and water to the garage so now it will become attached, that's friggin crazy. IMHO


I hear ya.  I don't know where they come up with these rules.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 17, 2013)

Multiple answers:

  For zoning, I would let it go as attached if that made life easier for the owner.

  As far as occupancy, if it is attached, then there is still one dwelling. It has two dwelling units. I.e. it is a two-family dwelling.

  Having two service drops is no different from how a "duplex" would be wired in many jurisdictions - though there's probably someone somewhere who only allows one drop.


----------



## Dennis (Jan 17, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Multiple answers:   For zoning, I would let it go as attached if that made life easier for the owner.
> 
> As far as occupancy, if it is attached, then there is still one dwelling. It has two dwelling units. I.e. it is a two-family dwelling.
> 
> Having two service drops is no different from how a "duplex" would be wired in many jurisdictions - though there's probably someone somewhere who only allows one drop.


I think the difference is that a condo is owned by difference people so their meters must be on the part of the building that they live in-- also firewalls make them detached.  That is my point here-- no fire wall needed if the walls don't get attached.

Not sure about a duplex as they can be individually owned or often one owner but again their would be a firewall making the buildings separate.


----------



## steveray (Jan 17, 2013)

No firewall in a duplex......one building.....



			
				Dennis said:
			
		

> I think the difference is that a condo is owned by difference people so their meters must be on the part of the building that they live in-- also firewalls make them detached.  That is my point here-- no fire wall needed if the walls don't get attached.Not sure about a duplex as they can be individually owned or often one owner but again their would be a firewall making the buildings separate.


----------



## north star (Jan 17, 2013)

*= = =*



In defense of the Single Service to a property... In my experience

in this AHJ, once a secondary service drop [ i.e. - another meter ]

to a property is allowed, the originally proposed hobby shed /

detached garage has now become another dwelling on the property,

to house whomever......Once that Pandora's Door has been opened,

it then becomes harder to enforce Article 230.2 & any Zoning

requirements.....In some more words, ...promises are [ typically ]

made to get a permit issued and after the project is completed,

the structure now turns in to something totally different.



*$ $ $*


----------



## Yankee (Jan 17, 2013)

north star said:
			
		

> *= = =*
> 
> In defense of the Single Service to a property... In my experience
> 
> ...


It is already a dwelling unit, whether it has it's own service or not.


----------



## Dennis (Jan 17, 2013)

That is not the case here as we are putting an apartment in above the garage.  This is walking distance to the University so it will rent fast to a graduate student


----------



## tmurray (Jan 17, 2013)

From a zoning perspective I would consider them attached.

From a building perspective I would require the applicant to undertake a limiting distance calculation to check for permitted construction type, combustibility of siding, area of unprotected openings and possible wall rating.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 19, 2013)

Our zoning code says an accessory structure within 10 feet is attached.


----------



## ICE (Jan 19, 2013)

Attached or not, our zoning regulations require additional covered parking.


----------

