• 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

Openings in Party walls

Tim Mailloux

Registered User
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
747
Location
Hartford CT
We have a client that owns two adjacent buildings on two separate properties. The two buildings abut one another with a party wall. This client would like to create an opening between the two buildings, but per 2015 IBC 706.1.1 ‘……Party walls shall be constructed without openings….’

Is there another way to skin this cat? Maybe we could get the two plots of land merged into one and then consider this two buildings on the same property. what was previously a party wall is now technically a double fire wall per NFPA 221 and an opening between the two buildings would be allowed.
 
IBC commentary; A party wall is a fire wall on an interior lot line, adapted for joint use by both buildings. It is distinguished from other fire walls in that it is on the property line and serves to separate buildings usually owned by two separate parties. When two separate structures are built up to the property line, the designer has the option of using two separate exterior walls with zero FSD or a party wall. Since there is a real property line involved, the prohibition for openings between the two buildings is important and even utilities cannot penetrate the party wall. Unlike fire walls in other buildings, which can have openings in them, party walls cannot have any openings in them (see Section 706.8 for opening limits on other fire walls).

Merging the parcels into one would be the ideal option OR request a modification from OSBI.
 
Merge the lots or .....Mod to 2021 if that works (below)? or just mod...?

706.1.1 Party walls. Any wall located on a lot line between adjacent buildings, which is used or adapted for joint service between the two buildings, shall be constructed as a fire wall in accordance with Section 706.
Party walls shall be constructed without openings and shall create separate buildings.
Exceptions: 1. Openings in a party wall separating an anchor building and a mall shall be in accordance with Section 402.4.2.2.1.
2. Party walls and fire walls are not required on lot lines dividing a building for ownership purposes where the aggregate height and area of the portions of the building located on both sides of the lot line do not exceed the maximum height and area requirements of this code. For the building official’s review and approval, the official shall be provided with copies of dedicated access easements and contractual agreements that permit the owners of portions of the building located on either side of the lot line access to the other side for purposes of maintaining fire and life safety systems necessary for the operation of the building.
 
CT OSBI got back to me and they would not be inclined to grant a code mod for this. Now looking into merging the two lots into one lot with two buildings on it.
 
Agree with Steve for the new exception 2 to706.1.1 to 2021. Assuming the aggregrate height and areas work, the 2021 would allow you to not have a party wall at all. A code mod based on that to simply provide a door seems reasonable. Did you explain that code logic to OBSI?
 
Agree with Steve for the new exception 2 to706.1.1 to 2021. Assuming the aggregrate height and areas work, the 2021 would allow you to not have a party wall at all. A code mod based on that to simply provide a door seems reasonable. Did you explain that code logic to OBSI?
Don't get me wrong...I think I hate that code section...Maybe they do too.....
 
Isn't the problem of giving a variance that if the owner later sells one of the properties, not usually a building department event, it becomes non-compliant? No expert on this occupancy, but I've seen that changes to buildings over time seemed ok when made but resulted in fatalities. I just believe when you make changes and additions to buildings or grant variances to the code, you have to look future changes, especially those without code review.
 
I have some additional information on these buildings, and by the looks of the few original drawings we have it looks like we are dealing with two adjacent exterior walls with a zero fire seperation distance and not a Party Wall. Either way opening are not allowed.
 
Top