In such a case, and speaking only as they relate to the code, how are openings at the property lines at exterior walls reconciled?brudgers said: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?brudgers said:Yes.Each condominium unit has property lines in all three dimensions.
Would you consider the wall between the dwelling unit and the common space a dwelling unit separation wall?brudgers said:Yep.Imagine a two family dwelling with a single covered front entry from which each unit can be accessed via its own door.
Suppose it's just a cantilevered roof.texasbo said:Would you consider the wall between the dwelling unit and the common space a dwelling unit separation wall?
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.texasbo said:In such a case, and speaking only as they relate to the code, how are openings at the property lines at exterior walls reconciled?
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.brudgers said: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.
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?brudgers said:Suppose it's just a cantilevered roof.
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.incognito said: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.
Property lines are not a feature of the code.texasbo said:property/lot line
The difference between code compliance and non-compliance is also purely legal.mtlogcabin said:The difference between a condominium and an apartment is purely legal:
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).mtlogcabin said: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
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.ewenme said: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 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.Yankee said: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.
How do you deal with setbacks from lot lines (for building applications) in the field?texasbo said: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.
Could you get me that section please?texasbo said: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.