Change of plan - openings between townhouses

[texasbo]

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 . .

It's all interpretation, and I don't think anyone is right or wrong; I just personally feel the preponderance of code provisions point to not allowing openings at lot lines, but that's just my opinion. And I still say this is an excellent discussion.

And I too am going back to the issue at hand, and that issue for me, is beating the helloutta LSU. Have a good weekend!

 

[brudgers]

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 . .

The wall between dwellings in a two family dwelling is not a party wall because the IRC does not define it as such.

 

[peach]

If I can build a 45,000 sq ft house under IRC... which I think I can... where in the IRC is the requirement for fire barriers?

 

[Yankee]

I didn't find a definition of party wall at all in the codes (???) so I used the Webster's, and it calls any wall along a property line a party wall?

 

[peach]

generally true... so if the houses (by virtue of a covenant) are one house for now..

 

[brudgers]

If I can build a 45,000 sq ft house under IRC... which I think I can... where in the IRC is the requirement for fire barriers?

One hour fire resistant construction is required to separate the dwellings in a two family dwelling under the IRC.

BTW, if the door was 60 minute it would maintain the required fire separation.

 

[Yankee]

One hour fire resistant construction is required to separate the dwellings in a two family dwelling under the IRC.BTW, if the door was 60 minute it would maintain the required fire separation.

That is what I think exactly.

This property line magically turning the wall into a Fire Wall (2hrs no openings) . . . well . . . looks like that's what it says.

I don't know of a covenant that can effect codes, even zoning ordinances.

 

[peach]

a covenant can go with the property or with the ownership...

 

[Yankee]

a covenant can go with the property or with the ownership...

A covenant isn't a code and isn't a zoning ordinance, to my knowledge.

 

[texasbo]

The wall between dwellings in a two family dwelling is not a party wall because the IRC does not define it as such.

The question and answer in this case had nothing to do with IRC. Did you miss the "it happens in the IBC all the time" part?

 

[texasbo]

One hour fire resistant construction is required to separate the dwellings in a two family dwelling under the IRC.BTW, if the door was 60 minute it would maintain the required fire separation.

No. The code does not say one hour fire resistant construction. It says a one hour wall and/or floor assembly complying with ASTM E-119 is required. ASTM E-119 is not a fire test for rated doors.

Is a 60 minute door a one hour rated wall assembly?

 

[mtlogcabin]

CHAPTER 3

BUILDING PLANNING

SECTION R321.1

IRC Interpretation No. 41-03

2000 Edition

Issued: 06-08-04

​

R321.1 Two-family dwellings.

Dwelling units in two-family dwellings shall be separated from each other by wall and/or floor

​

assemblies of not less than 1-hour fire-resistive rating when tested in accordance with ASTM E 119. Fire-resistance-rated floor-ceiling

​

and wall assemblies shall extend to and be tight against the exterior wall, and wall assemblies shall extend to the underside of the roof

sheathing.



​

Exception:

​

A fire resistance rating of 1/2 hour shall be permitted in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic

​

sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13.

​

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Q:

​

Is a two-family dwelling with a property line separating the dwelling units required to comply with the separation

​

provisions in Section R321.1?

​

A:

​

No. The code does not address a property line within an attached two-family dwelling. A dwelling is a building that contains one or two dwelling units. A building line, or property line, is a line established by law, beyond which a building

​

shall not extend. An attached two-family dwelling with a property line between the two dwelling units is considered two separate buildings, located on two separate lots. Two individual dwellings must comply with the fire separation distance required in Section R302.1.

​

The code sections reference the 2000 edition of the IRC

______________________________________________________________________________________________

​

 

[Richard]

In jurisdictions that use the IBC as well as the IRC, this building would be classified as an R-3 Use and even if the IRC is referenced as the applicable code it would be reasonable to say that the IBC requirement for a 2 hour Fire Wall between separate R-3 use group buildings that share a property line still applies. That requirements says the rating must be at least 2 hours and that there can be no openings.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

If the code had anything to do about ownership what would we do about condos?

 

[Yankee]

If the code had anything to do about ownership what would we do about condos?

Making the required fire rating between new condo units of any configuration is not a problem. The problem becomes when you tell your P&D department or the applicant that they can't condo-ize an existing property because it would cause a code violation. Or, if it is not a Change of Use requiring compliance with new construction, then it would be ok to condo-ize no matter what the nature of the seperation was. . . . help me out here

 

[texasbo]

The code doesn't address ownership, it addresses lot lines. Condos, at least in my part of the country, are owned paint-to-paint, and ownership is established by legal document. There are no platted lot lines between units. So there is no problem "condo-izing", whether it's brand new, or 100 years old ( in fact, it's not uncommon around here for apartments to be condo-ized. If there is a platted lot line, then opening protection is required as prescribed in the IRC or IBC depending on the building type.

Others have described condos that actually have platted lot lines around them so that when you walk out of your front door, you are on a separate lot. Never seen that, and don't no how it can be reconciled by code. It would take special agreements tied to the property and accepted by the city to make it work.

And Rick, I don't necessarilly agree that the code doesn't have "anything" to do with ownership, otherwise it wouldn't have so many provisions respecting property lines and building location on property. Why does it have lesser restrictions for buildings that have multiple tenants that own their spaces, but no lot lines? I can only assume that there is an inference that such buildings (such as condos, malls, etc.), have separate property management to ensure hazards are mitigated between the different tenant owners.

 

[brudgers]

I am joyed to see you are finally making a distinction between lot lines and property lines. Even though it means mischaracterizing what I wrote several weeks ago, I am optimistic that we won't have to cover all that ground again.

 

[Mac]

The difference (in NY, at least) is that people buy a share in a condominium, which includes hte right to live in a dwelling unit owned by the condo. There are no property lines, and the owner lives in the unit by agreement.

A Homeowners' Association, OTOH, is formed to protect the rights of people who buy a (sometimes attached) dwelling unit, and get a deed, title, and as mentioned, own the unit 'paint to paint'.

 

[texasbo]

I am joyed to see you are finally making a distinction between lot lines and property lines. Even though it means mischaracterizing what I wrote several weeks ago, I am optimistic that we won't have to cover all that ground again.

I am joyed to see that you are just as ignorant as you were 2+ weeks ago. The fact that the code uses on the term "lot line", doesn't mean there is any difference between the two. They are interchangeable, and if I'm not mistaken, I'm not the first to have to inform you of this.

Those who dwell on semantics or spelling typically do so in place of a good argument.

At least you didn't interrupt the discussion to reference the wrong code this time; annoying nonetheless.

 

[brudgers]

I am joyed to see that you are just as ignorant as you were 2+ weeks ago. The fact that the code uses on the term "lot line", doesn't mean there is any difference between the two.

Beam:column, roof:ceiling, fire resistant:non-combustible, property line:lot line, what's the difference?

It seems like half the time you're making stuff up, and the other half merely misapplying the code as written.

I'm not surprised you don't value accuracy.

 

[texasbo]

I can tell you the difference between a beam and a column. I can tell you the difference between fire resistant and noncombustible.

Please tell us the difference between property line and lot line.

Didn't think so.

Now, please stop typing just to see your words on the screen.

Or, more likely, we'll just continue sidestepping your irrelevant interruptions to continue the worthwhile conversation.

 

[brudgers]

I can tell you the difference between a beam and a column. I can tell you the difference between fire resistant and noncombustible.

I figured roof:ceiling would prove a bit too difficult.

 

[texas transplant]

Come on children, please play nice or take it private.

Thanks

 

[Yankee]

I haven't found the answer to my dilemma in these posts. So, it would seem, that some people agree that an apartment house can be built with (for instance) four dwelling units that require 1 hour separation, and the next year they can be turned into condo's on separate parcels that WOULD HAVE required 2 hour separation when built, and this all makes sense?