# Grouping of disconnects for townhouses



## jar546 (Mar 8, 2011)

Are you required to group disconnects for townhouses?


----------



## Darren Emery (Mar 8, 2011)

Boy - that's a can of worms you opened there Jar.

We've been round and round on this one in our office.  I'm looking forward to the responses on this one...


----------



## Builder Bob (Mar 8, 2011)

Quick response ---- No - reasoning - each townhouse is a seperate and distinct building in accordance with the IRC.  Zoning may have rules and regs that requires each building to have its own point of utility connection. Reasoning, a fire in townhouse unit 1 should (in theory) not affect townhouse units 2-6. If the grouping of disconnects was on unit number 1, how would the wiring be ran to feed the panels at the other townhomes(units 2-6) to protect the wiring from fire or other manmade act?

Best answer, check with your local zoning, building, and/or utility provider to see what is required.


----------



## Darren Emery (Mar 8, 2011)

Ok - stiring things up a bit - what we see here often is the disconnects grouped on one end, and the feeders run through the building to each unit.  I don't like this AT ALL - but have not found a code section to prohibit...


----------



## jar546 (Mar 8, 2011)

Let's get away from how the wires are run and concentrate on the issue of grouping disconnects.  How about this example:

A single group of 4 townhouses.

2 separate services, a 2 gang on the right and a 2 gang on the left.

All service runs from the 2 gang meters are underground and enter the townhouses individually.

Each unit has its own main panel in the basement.

Would your opinion differ if you were under the NEC vs the IRC?

Lets get this party started.  Discuss!!


----------



## jar546 (Mar 8, 2011)

How about looking at the NEC first:



> 230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard. There shall be not more than six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location.
> 
> For the purpose of this section, disconnecting means installed as part of listed equipment and used solely for the following shall not be considered a service disconnecting means:
> 
> ...





> 230.72 Grouping of Disconnects.(A) General. The two to six disconnects as permitted in 230.71 shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be marked to indicate the load served.
> 
> Exception:  One of the two to six service disconnecting means permitted in 230.71, where used only for a water pump also intended to provide fire protection, shall be permitted to be located remote from the other disconnecting means.
> 
> ...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 8, 2011)

I guess no under the IRC from what I read

R302.2 Townhouses. Each townhouse shall be considered a separate building and shall be separated by fire-resistance-rated wall assemblies meeting the requirements of Section R302.1 for exterior walls.

E3601.3 One building or other structure not to be supplied through another.

Service conductors supplying a building or other structure shall not pass through the interior of another building or other structure.

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.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 8, 2011)

The IRC would apply for townhouses of course and I am reading the same thing you are.  Grouping of disconnects is not required.  Plain and simple.

If you built townhouses under the NEC, I believe that grouped disconnects are required.


----------



## north star (Mar 8, 2011)

** * * **



IMO, the grouping of disconnects has been [ primarily ] a cost

savings to the constructors [ i.e. - electricians ] who installed 

them.....They install them in one location to save them time,

labor & material costs.....At plan review would be the optimal

time to bring out the various code requirements, ...not that

they will actually follow them mind you.....Also, it is more

convenient to the POCO meter readers to have them all

located in one grouped location.



Also, I am not painting all electricians and other trades as

being / acting unscrupulous and ignoring the codes and

other jurisdictional requirements, ...it just seems that

that is the common practice around these parts.



FWIW, I also agree that the disco's on the Residential side

are not "required" to be grouped.



** * * **


----------



## FredK (Mar 8, 2011)

FWIW, we required seperate services (one per address).

Was a blast explaining where they could put the panel in what wall to meet shear/fire requirements after that.  Seems the only location was where they wanted the window.  Another project that bit the dust with this current downturn.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 8, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> The IRC would apply for townhouses of course and I am reading the same thing you are. Grouping of disconnects is not required. Plain and simple.If you built townhouses under the NEC, I believe that grouped disconnects are required.


What if each townhouse was on its own lot such as our zoning requires. BTW we are under the NEC for electrical, enforced by the state.


----------



## raider1 (Mar 8, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> How about looking at the NEC first:





			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> The IRC would apply for townhouses of course and I am reading the same thing you are.  Grouping of disconnects is not required.  Plain and simple.If you built townhouses under the NEC, I believe that grouped disconnects are required.


Jar Article 225 does not apply to services. Article 225 is Titled "Outside Branch circuits and feeders".

Article 230 regulates electrical services.

If each unit is a separate building then there is no need to group the service disconnecting means.

Chris



			
				chris kennedy said:
			
		

> I removed the 225 reference at the OP request.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 8, 2011)

raider1 said:
			
		

> Jar Article 225 does not apply to services. Article 225 is Titled "Outside Branch circuits and feeders".Article 230 regulates electrical services.
> 
> If each unit is a separate building then there is no need to group the service disconnecting means.
> 
> Chris


You are correct about 230.  I know that and looked it up then opened up the electronic version and did a search to be quick and never looked at it again, just assumed I was in the right place.  Not the first time that has happened to me.

Anyway, the definition of building is key to the answer.


----------



## chris kennedy (Mar 8, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Let's get away from how the wires are run and concentrate on the issue of grouping disconnects.


Let's not concentrate, just had a 12 hour day, let's relax.



> How about this example:A single group of 4 townhouses.
> 
> 2 separate services, a 2 gang on the right and a 2 gang on the left.
> 
> ...


I see your IRC reference above, but I believe the key here is to look at the NEC definition of "Service". In your example the discos would have to be grouped.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 8, 2011)

I am still PO'd at myself for looking up the right NEC section in the book then bringing up the wrong one on the computer.  Not the first time I have done this which is why I think I need to slow down a little.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 8, 2011)

I am home now so I have to wait until tomorrow to fix my post.  Any moderators out there with NEC online want to fix my references?


----------



## chris kennedy (Mar 8, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I am still PO'd at myself for looking up the right NEC section in the book then bringing up the wrong one on the computer.  Not the first time I have done this which is why I think I need to slow down a little.


Don't worry about it, slowing down will come naturally with age.

I used to be really adverse to the computer version of codes. I was used to books, the comfort of knowing about where to flip to and being able to see whats around the section in question. Now I am very comfortable using computer versions. I have also become comfortable bidding from PDF's. (Guess Hell froze over:evil


----------



## chris kennedy (Mar 8, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I am home now so I have to wait until tomorrow to fix my post.  Any moderators out there with NEC online want to fix my references?


Done, you owe me a dollar.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 8, 2011)

Thanks!

Check is in the mail

This is probably the first time a moderator ever moderated the administrator. LOL


----------



## Mule (Mar 9, 2011)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> (Guess Hell froze over:evil


----------



## peach (Mar 9, 2011)

No... each townhouse is a separate "property" under IRC..  fire fighters may like to disconnect all power to all units at one place, but the code doesn't require.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 11, 2011)

We allow them to gang the meters with individual feeders to each unit and individual panels and disconnecting means for each unit.

Darren E.

They cannot breech the firewall with the service cable. This is not in the code but it is a requirement of the listing of the firewall assembly. Pentrations-no listing and thus no approval.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 19, 2011)

So what is the consensus?

If there is a 4 unit townhouse and they install a 2 gang meter on the left side and a 2 gang meter on the right side, do each of the 2 gang services have to have grouped disconnects?


----------



## Yankee (Mar 19, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> So what is the consensus?If there is a 4 unit townhouse and they install a 2 gang meter on the left side and a 2 gang meter on the right side, do each of the 2 gang services have to have grouped disconnects?


 Depends on the utility company or the jurisdiction, if they don't require a disconnect at the service the disconnects can be at each unit panel. I'm not sure putting a service on someone else's property is ok. I'd split everything to match the units


----------



## jar546 (Mar 19, 2011)

I am talking NEC.  Grouping of disconnects has nothing to do with the POCO in our area.  Strictly an NEC for this question.


----------



## Yankee (Mar 19, 2011)

Then the disconnects would make more sense to be at the panel in each townhouse, IMHO. The disconnect can't be readily accessible if it is on someone else's property.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 19, 2011)

Making more sense and NEC compliant are 2 different animals.

Why do I ask.  :banghd


----------



## Yankee (Mar 19, 2011)

You ask because NEC disallows more than one SE per building. Townhouses are separate buildings.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 19, 2011)

There are 2 service drops for 4 units.  Read 230.71 please


----------



## raider1 (Mar 21, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> So what is the consensus?If there is a 4 unit townhouse and they install a 2 gang meter on the left side and a 2 gang meter on the right side, do each of the 2 gang services have to have grouped disconnects?





			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> There are 2 service drops for 4 units.  Read 230.71 please


230.71 deals with the maximum number of disconnects for a single service.

4 townhomes would be 4 separate building and each could have a separate service.

So, short NEC answer the 2 2gang meter/disconnect packs would not need to be grouped.

Chris


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 21, 2011)

Townhouses are separate buildings so they should have separate services, not located on neighboring townhouses.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 22, 2011)

raider1 said:
			
		

> 230.71 deals with the maximum number of disconnects for a single service.4 townhomes would be 4 separate building and each could have a separate service.
> 
> So, short NEC answer the 2 2gang meter/disconnect packs would not need to be grouped.
> 
> Chris


I have flip flopped on this subject more than once.  I have called the NFPA and was told they need to be grouped.  That of course is one person's opinion.  I have contacted the ICC and nothing was resolved.

After reading it over and over and dissecting it yet again, I am in agreement with Chris in his post.

Does not need to be grouped in the instance of the townhouse, even if they put 4 meters off of one drop on one end.

Grouping not required.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 22, 2011)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> Townhouses are separate buildings so they should have separate services, not located on neighboring townhouses.


I agree but it is not a code issue.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 25, 2011)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> Townhouses are separate buildings so they should have separate services, not located on neighboring townhouses.


The location of the disconnect is what determines the premises ("building" is not the correct term since the premises wiring is not limited to the building itself).

If the disconnect is on the end of a structure containing four townhouses, then the premises wiring begins at that point. The wires between the disconnecting means and the building just happen to be exterior.

Some jurisdictions require townhouses to have clustered disconnects to facilitate fire-fighting operations.


----------



## Yankee (Mar 25, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The location of the disconnect is what determines the premises ("building" is not the correct term since the premises wiring is not limited to the building itself).If the disconnect is on the end of a structure containing four townhouses, then the premises wiring begins at that point. The wires between the disconnecting means and the building just happen to be exterior.
> 
> Some jurisdictions require townhouses to have clustered disconnects to facilitate fire-fighting operations.


I'd argue that a disconnect located on someone else's property was not available for the tenant (or could become unavailable easily)


----------



## brudgers (Mar 26, 2011)

That's what easements are for.

Besides in this sort of arrangement the remote disconnect is at the meter - there is a second disconnect at the main panel in or on the unit.

Seriously, grouping the disconnects on a multi-building structure allows the fire service to cut power to adjacent dwellings and limits the likelihood of the disconnect being difficult to access because maintaining clearance becomes a function of the HOA.

I've even seen grouped services on a free-standing panel in common areas between multi-building structures.


----------

