• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

FBC 2020 (Florida) 705.8 Inset or recessed balconies considered openings in an exterior wall

K

KHARRIGAN

Registered User
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
3
Location
Richmond, VA
This topic pertains to a buidling in Florida. The building code official for our project is interepreting the opening for an inset balcony as the opening in an exterior wall and thereby limiting size of openings based on fire sepration distance. We specifically recessed the exterior wall so that we could have more windows, since we have a very narrow site. Our stance is that an exterior wall is a wall that separates interior space from exterior space. The code official is saying that the fire area of the building, which is under cover from the floor above determines the calculation for Fire Separation distance. We are sprinklering the balconies. Has anyone had experiance with something similar? It would be helpful if there were a similar code interpretation.
 
I have not encountered anything similar, because I have never encountered a code official who didn't know what constitutes the exterior wall of a building. I tink what he is confused about is this:

IBC 2021, Definitions:
[BG] AREA, BUILDING. The area included within surrounding
exterior walls, or exterior walls and fire walls, exclusive of
vent shafts and courts. Areas of the building not provided with
surrounding walls shall be included in the building area if such
areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof
or floor above.
Click to expand...

So the balconies would be considered to be included in the gross area of the story(ies) that have them, but they are still outside of the exterior walls. The openings that would be regulated by the fire separation distance are the patio doors leading from the interior onto the balconies. Fortunately, the IBC also defines "exterior wall":

[BF] EXTERIOR WALL. A wall, bearing or nonbearing, that
is used as an enclosing wall for a building, other than a fire wall,
and that has a slope of 60 degrees (1.05 rad) or greater with the
horizontal plane.
Click to expand...

Fire separation distance regulates the distance from the exterior walls, Where the exterior wall steps back (jogs), the fire separation distance increases at the setbacks. Fire separation distance is never measured to where there ISN'T an exterior wall.
 
This was previously discussed here:
https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/balcony-along-shared-property-line.31796/

1699649940949.png

In order to successfully argue this with the fire official, you will probably need to explain how an inset balcony with a roof overhead and guardrail next to the property line is fundamentally different (in terms of smoke, flames, heat) than an enclosed building with unprotected window openings at the same location, which the code does not allow.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes it's impossible to argue with code officials who don't (or won't) understand the code.

A number of years ago I sat down with a small-town building officlal and their fire marshal to discuss plans for a small church to add office space and a Sunday school classroom adjacent to the sanctuary. The plan called for there to be a firewall (a true firewall) between the existing structure and the addition, converting what had been an exterior door that exited down a rickety old wood stair into a horizontal exit that discharged into a corridor that led to an exit directly at grade. Both the building official and the fire marshal insisted there was no such thing as a "horizontal exit."
 
Their response has included statements such as: "The Fire separation Distance has to consider the Fire Area because it's the title of the code chapter." And, "An opening in a wall is any opening, not just a window or a door." The real issue is the code doesn't define Openings. I have submitted a code interpretation to ICC and will also submit one to Florida. The inspector has dug their heels in so an appeal is our only route at this time.
 
KHARRIGAN said:
Their response has included statements such as: "The Fire separation Distance has to consider the Fire Area because it's the title of the code chapter." And, "An opening in a wall is any opening, not just a window or a door." The real issue is the code doesn't define Openings. I have submitted a code interpretation to ICC and will also submit one to Florida. The inspector has dug their heels in so an appeal is our only route at this time.
Click to expand...

Of course any opening in a wall is an opening. But a jog setback in the wall is not an opening -- a jog creates a space where there is no wall, but where the enclosing wall is located parallel to the closest wall but several feet farther away from the fire separation line.

The IBC does define "wall" -- unfortunately, the definition only applies to Chapter 21:

WALL. This definition applies only to Chapter 21.
A vertical element with a horizontal length-to-thickness
ratio greater than three, used to enclose space.
Click to expand...
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Of course any opening in a wall is an opening. But a jog setback in the wall is not an opening -- a jog creates a space where there is no wall, but where the enclosing wall is located parallel to the closest wall but several feet farther away from the fire separation line.
Click to expand...
if the setback has a roof over it, does the edge of the roof define the new face of wall?
 
Yikes said:
if the setback has a roof over it, does the edge of the roof define the new face of wall?
Click to expand...

In my opinion -- no. How can it, when the actual wall is right there, 6 or 8 feet inboard of the edge of the roof?

Let's face it -- when you parse any definition of a wall, a wall is a thing. When we discuss the open space beneath the outer edge of the roof over a balcony, we are not talking about a thing, we are talking about nothing --- "no-thing". To say that the presence of a roof makes the open side of a balcony a wall would have to mean that the presence of a roof makes an open carport into a garage -- because by that definition the carport would be surrounded by four walls.

We are dealing with this very question at the moment, reviewing plans for a small building on a very tight lot adjacent to a stream. It's supposed to be a business on the ground floor with two apartments upstairs, so it's in the IBC, not the IRC. The problem is that the stream isn't large enough to be a navigable waterway, so the stream actually runs through an adjoining parcel. The side yard setback ranges from about 6 inches to a foot, so the code doesn't allow any unprotected openings. It's unfortunate, because the stream bed is only a few feet from the property line, so there will never be anything built on the side of the building we're reviewing, but the rules are that it's a property line. The applicant has taken the issue to the state, and the state had declined to grant a modification unless the owner can get a "no build" easement from the owner of the parcel that the stream runs through.

The real irony is that the woman who owns the adjoining parcel didn't even know she owned both sides of the river -- she thought her property ended at the opposite side of the river.
 
Last edited:
Yankee Chronicler said:
In my opinion -- no. How can it, when the actual wall is right there, 6 or 8 feet inboard of the edge of the roof?

Let's face it -- when you parse any definition of a wall, a wall is a thing. When we discuss the open space beneath the outer edge of the roof over a balcony, we are not talking about a thing, we are talking about nothing --- "no-thing". To say that the presence of a roof makes the open side of a balcony a wall would have to mean that the presence of a roof makes an open carport into a garage -- because by that definition the carport would be surrounded by four walls.

We are dealing with this very question at the moment, reviewing plans for a small building on a very tight lot adjacent to a stream. It's supposed to be a business on the ground floor with two apartments upstairs, so it's in the IBC, not the IRC. The problem is that the stream isn't large enough to be a navigable waterway, so the stream actually runs through an adjoining parcel. The side yard setback ranges from about 6 inches to a foot, so the code doesn't allow any unprotected openings. It's unfortunate, because the stream bed is only a few feet from the property line, so there will never be anything built on the side of the building we're reviewing, but the rules are that it's a property line. The applicant has taken the issue to the state, and the state had declined to grant a modification unless the owner can get a "no build" easement from the owner of the parcel that the stream runs through.

The real irony is that the woman who owns the adjoining parcel didn't even know she owned both sides of the river -- she thought her property ended at the opposite side of the river.
Click to expand...
1. I want that apartment, especially if that’s a trout stream…

2. We’ve had previous threads where the fire department plan checker said that carports (impervious metal roof supported by posts) that were within 10’ of the apartment wall needed a solid wall on the carport. They said that, absent other walls, the “building area” of the carport was defined by the carport roof perimeter, and that smoke from a car fire would be forced to go sideways, just like fire pouring out of a floor-to-ceiling window opening.
In other words, the carports needed to be located where unlimited wall openings were allowed Due to distance from property lines ( and assumed property lines).

In the end, we had to make the carport roof out of perforated metal so that it no longer qualified as a ‘roof’ and the smoke could rise upward.
 
Yikes said:
1. I want that apartment, especially if that’s a trout stream…

2. We’ve had previous threads where the fire department plan checker said that carports (impervious metal roof supported by posts) that were within 10’ of the apartment wall needed a solid wall on the carport. They said that, absent other walls, the “building area” of the carport was defined by the carport roof perimeter, and that smoke from a car fire would be forced to go sideways, just like fire pouring out of a floor-to-ceiling window opening.
In other words, the carports needed to be located where unlimited wall openings were allowed Due to distance from property lines ( and assumed property lines).

In the end, we had to make the carport roof out of perforated metal so that it no longer qualified as a ‘roof’ and the smoke could rise upward.
Click to expand...
Not sure that smoke is supposed to be the concern, but.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top