Change of plan - openings between townhouses

[texasbo]

Yes.Each condominium unit has property lines in all three dimensions.

In such a case, and speaking only as they relate to the code, how are openings at the property lines at exterior walls reconciled?

 

[texasbo]

Yep.Imagine a two family dwelling with a single covered front entry from which each unit can be accessed via its own door.

Would you consider the wall between the dwelling unit and the common space a dwelling unit separation wall?

 

[brudgers]

Would you consider the wall between the dwelling unit and the common space a dwelling unit separation wall?

Suppose it's just a cantilevered roof.

 

[brudgers]

In such a case, and speaking only as they relate to the code, how are openings at the property lines at exterior walls reconciled?

According to chapter 7.Typically every unit will have a property line at the exterior walls whenever the unit is adjacent to one or more exterior walls.

 

[incognito]

We have dozens of these dwellings. From the street they appear to be a duplex---one lot and the dwellings sharing a common wall. But they are not on one lot. They are on two separate and distinct lots with each lot having a separate and unique legal description. Typically the lots are identified as lot 1A and lot 1B, lot 2A and lot 2B and so on throughout the development. Due to there being two separate dwellings sharing a common wall at the property line we require a two hour wall for separation purposes. Had never really considered the potential for someone wanting to punch a hole in the common wall. After reading most of the comments I guess I would be the most comfortable with Min&Max solution. Seems to be the easiest overall and only dealing with one property owner would have both short and long term benefits. Really doesn't matter what the IRC says or doesn't say because would most likely be able to get what I want by using zoning regs as well as AHJ interpretive ability. Actually probably pretty easy to accomplish if you don't "what if" it to death.

 

[texasbo]

According to chapter 7.Typically every unit will have a property line at the exterior walls whenever the unit is adjacent to one or more exterior walls.

Could you be more specific? Chapter 7 doesn't allow openings in exterior walls immediately adjacent to property lines. The condos we've done are on a single property, and ownership is of the space within the unit, conveyed by deed/contract ; there are no property lines. In fact, it is not uncommon for apartments to be converted to condos, which is fine with me and the code, as others have said the code doesn't care about ownership.

However, if there is actually a property/lot line, I'd still like to know how you reconcile openings that are immediately adjacent to it.

 

[texasbo]

Suppose it's just a cantilevered roof.

Then the question would be: do you consider it a dwelling unit separation wall adjacent to a property line, or an exterior wall adjacent to a property line?

 

[texasbo]

Really doesn't matter what the IRC says or doesn't say because would most likely be able to get what I want by using zoning regs as well as AHJ interpretive ability. Actually probably pretty easy to accomplish if you don't "what if" it to death.

Completely agree that it's pretty easy to accomplish, but I do think it's important what the IRC says. I think it's important to have a firm understanding of the specific code requirements first, in order to reach a satisfactory solution. In this case, I feel that it's prohibited by the IRC, and, as you said, I'd work forward from that point (through zoning, agreement, etc) to find an alternate.

 

[brudgers]

property/lot line

Property lines are not a feature of the code.

 

[mtlogcabin]

There is no difference between a property line and a lot line

Condominiums do not create seperate lots or parcels

FYI

The difference between a condominium and an apartment is purely legal: there is no way to know a condo from an apartment simply by looking at or visiting the building. What defines a condominium is the form of ownership. The same building developed as a condominium (and sold as individual units to different owners) could actually be built someplace else as an apartment building (the developers would retain ownership and rent individual units to different tenants).

Technically, a condominium is a collection of individual home units along with the land upon which they sit. Individual home ownership within a condominium is construed as ownership of only the air space confining the boundaries of the home (Anglo-Saxon law systems; different elsewhere). The boundaries of that space are specified by a legal document known as a Declaration, filed of record with the local governing authority. Typically these boundaries will include the drywall surrounding a room, allowing the homeowner to make some interior modifications without impacting the common area. Anything outside this boundary is held in an undivided ownership interest by a corporation established at the time of the condominium’s creation. The corporation holds this property in trust on behalf of the homeowners as a group–-it may not have ownership itself.

 

[Jobsaver]

Thanks mt. Good primer on this subject.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Francis Vineyard had the best answer (aside from Coug Dad's observation on the use group). Grant a modification to have a rated lockable door on each side of the wall, similar to what is seen between hotel suites. The main problem would be coming up with a frame detail that would allow construction on one side to collapse in a fire yet still leave the rated door on the other side intact.

 

[brudgers]

The difference between a condominium and an apartment is purely legal:

The difference between code compliance and non-compliance is also purely legal.

On the other hand, apartments may have condominium ownership or the building may be owned fee simple.

And either may be rented to non-owner tenants.

 

[ewenme]

Our Community Development Director amended the City Code to define and allow 'twin homes' in addition to townhouses in certain zoning classifications. A twin home is two single-family homes with a zero lot line that is defined by a two-hour fire wall with no through penetrations, no plumbing or mechanical in that wall, but electrical is allowed but not is the same stud bay. We also amended our IRC to include the twin-home. If you cut a hole in the separation wall, then you no longer have the two-single family dwellings. I'm inclined to agree with the I-2. But seriously, either it's one SFR or two SFRs. The legal aspects of that are beyond the code. If walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

 

[mtlogcabin]

Ther are millions of 2 unit townhomes with a required property line between the units constructed under CABO. I still contend it was wrong for the IRC to eleiminate the property line requirement and incresing from 2 units to 3 for tthe definition of a townhouse

 

[Jobsaver]

In addition to defining the structure, or zoning, the number of electrical services allowed per NEC 230.2 still overshadows this thread. Supposing the opening is allowed and the building is construed to be a single SFR, would an allowance for two services be acceptable under Special Occupancies (B)(2), or, Capacity Requirements ©(3) with labeling?

 

[Yankee]

Yes, a condo is a separate parcel just go look at the tax maps or to the registry of deeds. The remaining shared area is also a separate parcel. There are indeed lot lines associated with these parcels even if they run "under the sheetrock".

 

[Yankee]

Ther are millions of 2 unit townhomes with a required property line between the units constructed under CABO. I still contend it was wrong for the IRC to eleiminate the property line requirement and incresing from 2 units to 3 for tthe definition of a townhouse

So now they are two family dwellings (duplexes) and they are condos. I don't see that as a bad thing. They might be "shaped" like a "townhouse" but under the code they are two family dwellings (duplexes).

 

[Yankee]

Our Community Development Director amended the City Code to define and allow 'twin homes' in addition to townhouses in certain zoning classifications. A twin home is two single-family homes with a zero lot line that is defined by a two-hour fire wall with no through penetrations, no plumbing or mechanical in that wall, but electrical is allowed but not is the same stud bay. We also amended our IRC to include the twin-home. If you cut a hole in the separation wall, then you no longer have the two-single family dwellings. I'm inclined to agree with the I-2. But seriously, either it's one SFR or two SFRs. The legal aspects of that are beyond the code. If walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

I still don't see the issue with a rated fire door in a rated fire wall. It happens in the IBC all the time (skipping my previous "corridor" example,) to turn a two- part building into two separate and distinct buildings by virtue of the rated wall (with door). If it is approvable in the IBC, it is approvable for an IRC building.

 

[texasbo]

I still don't see the issue with a rated fire door in a rated fire wall. It happens in the IBC all the time (skipping my previous "corridor" example,) to turn a two- part building into two separate and distinct buildings by virtue of the rated wall (with door). If it is approvable in the IBC, it is approvable for an IRC building.

I don't see it as a problem either, in this case, but again, for academic purposes, you don't see it in the IBC at a lot line. Openings are prohibited if the wall is located right at the PL, whether it's an exterior wall or a party wall.

Going back to the condo/IBC thing: if they are shown with lot lines at exterior walls as you and brudgers have said (and one of you said you walk out the door and are immediately on another parcel), that may be fine if you have handled such situations administratively, or by amendment, but strictly by code it's prohibited.

Also, how the condo/lot line/property line is handled may be regional. You said that your parcel maps show lot lines; ours don't. The ownership is handled by legal instrument, not platted property. I have no problem either way, but it's just interesting to note that it's apparently different in different parts of the country.

 

[Yankee]

Also, how the condo/lot line/property line is handled may be regional. You said that your parcel maps show lot lines; ours don't. The ownership is handled by legal instrument, not platted property. I have no problem either way, but it's just interesting to note that it's apparently different in different parts of the country.

How do you deal with setbacks from lot lines (for building applications) in the field?

 

[Yankee]

I don't see it as a problem either, in this case, but again, for academic purposes, you don't see it in the IBC at a lot line. Openings are prohibited if the wall is located right at the PL, whether it's an exterior wall or a party wall.

Could you get me that section please?

 

[texasbo]

Table 704.8, Sec 705.1.1, 2006 IBC.

 

[Yankee]

I didn't find it there, because I am looking on-line at the 2009, but I did find what you are referring to, I think. Party walls constructed on lot lines but be constructed as fire walls and cannot have openings only in the case of a property line division. That is interesting and I will have to ruminate on that a bit (and see if I can crack it : ).

So , , back to the issue at hand . .