Since I just argued this before the board I'll bite. The article reads dwelling not residence although in my opinion an apartment would be included in either of these. The feeder or feeders if located between the main disconnect and lighting and appliance panel or panels can be sized by 310.15(B)(6).

Now let me clear up my original post. The sub panel in question is a lighting and appliance panel. It is the only one inside the dwelling. The calculated load was 47.5 amps on this panel. It contained 2 small appliance circuits, 1 bathroom circuit, 2000sq. ft. lighting load, and 4 electric space heaters. I used 220.30 Optional calculation method since I had 4 unit heaters. The chairman of the board, much to my delight, was an electrical engineer, and initially had a problem with the diversity of load in the lighting and appliance sub panel. The outdoor service equipment panel has the range, water heater, dryer, laundry circuit, and the feeder breaker for the lighting and appliance panel in it. When I said 310.15(B)(6) allowed lighting and appliance panel or panels. His opinion of this was that the lighting and appliance panels were limited by a percentage of 20 amp circuits, and therefore the service panel did not meet the requirements for a lighting and appliance panels. When I read 408.14(A) and mentioned that in my home jurisdiction that ranges, dryers, and water heaters are appliances, he saw no problem with the installation.
There was also an electrical contractor who took issue with my calculation of the load in the sub panel, because he said the calculations only covered services and not feeders. When I pointed out 220.30(A) he saw no problem with the installation. Now if the AHJ had been that reasonable, this appeal would have never happened.
The 310.15(B)(6) issue was not part of the original appeal and the chairman asked the building official where did this come from. He responded that he just had a problem with it on his, subsequent to my appeal, visit to the job to see if he could find anything else to cite me for, only this time he thought he had 310.16 to use against me. He only showed his ignorance of the code once again along with what a jerk he is.
[Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image]