# 4 unit townhomes with 2 of them ranches and ADA Type B Requirements



## jar546 (Sep 9, 2010)

4 townhomes with a 2 hour rated common wall (U-336)

The 2 on the ends are ranches, the 2 in the middle are 2 story

R322 requires at least one be accessible, architect says no because they are separated by firewalls.  I say they are not firewalls, just fire rated assemblies and it is still 1 structure therefore R322 and Ch 11 of the IBC applies along with ANSI 117.1

He still says no.

Luckily the state of PA backs me up with an advisory that they put out a few years ago and after checking with our local HUD office under the Fair Housing Act, it directly answers this questions with a solid YES, even townhouses with firewalls.

So this is required on 2 levels, State and Federal and I knew this but of course had to bring out the big guns to prove it to him.

I wonder if they will redesign to make them all 2 stories?

Why do they argue after I told him I was already down this road and I am absolutely sure that one of the ranches must be type B accessible.   Shouldn't an architect already know this stuff since it involves accessibility?

OK, rant is over.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Sep 9, 2010)

R322 says "Where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units in a single structure, the provisions of Chapter 11 of the International Building Code for Group R-3 shall apply."

IRC Chapter 2 defines Structure as "That which is built or constructed".  There is no mention of firewalls dividing it into multiple buildings or structures.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 9, 2010)

Dwellings built within a single structure but separated by a firewall are treated under the Fair Housing Act as a single building.

http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/FAIRHOUSING/fairfull.pdf


----------



## jar546 (Sep 9, 2010)

Paul and Mark.  Why are the 3 of us reading and interpreting this requirement the same way but the architect does not seem to comprehend?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 9, 2010)

FHA, Multifamily housing is covered with 4+ units in a single building: "Dwellings built within a single structure but seperated by a *firewall* are

treated as a single building."

*"kaboom!"*

pc1


----------



## jar546 (Sep 9, 2010)

Still unanimous.  There is no gray area here.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 9, 2010)

Have the architect download and read the link I previously posted in this thread


----------



## jar546 (Sep 16, 2010)

This now gets real good.  One of the PA L&I inspector auditors spoke with the architect and told him that if they finish even a small part of the basement then it is considered 2 stories and they don't need to comply.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 16, 2010)

jar546 said:
			
		

> This now gets real good.  One of the PA L&I inspector auditors spoke with the architect and told him that if they finish even a small part of the basement then it is considered 2 stories and they don't need to comply.


Ground floor is not basement level.

What is the "PA L&I"?

HUD (DOJ), enforces  the federal Fair Housing laws...


----------



## jar546 (Sep 16, 2010)

This is for Ch 11 of the IBC and ANSI 117.1 2003 compliance.  I cannot enforce HUD or DOJ.

Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry oversees the state building code and has the accessibility advisory board for variances to the state accessibility requirements

Does anyone have the direct phone number to Kim Paarlberg at ICC.  The regular phone states the system is still down.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 16, 2010)

Section 502 Basement: A basement shall be considered as a story above grade plane where the finished surface of the floor above the basement is:

1. More than 6ft above grade plane or

2. More than 12ft above the finished ground level at any point.

See section 202 also.

Your city's zoning code may also have a difinition of basement.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 17, 2010)

Any other input on this one?


----------



## brudgers (Sep 17, 2010)

No such thing as a "townhome."

If it's a townhouse, then it's an attached one family dwelling.

The definition in R322 is poorly written since each townhouse is considered a separate building (by R317) and the IRC does not allow more than two units within a single structure [by definition].

From an enforcement standpoint, my opinion is that the Owner is responsible for meeting FHA accessibility requirements and I would treat townhouses like any other SFR.

I'd justify based on the fact that a single structure containing multiple buildings is absurd and defies common sense.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 17, 2010)

The IRC does not say that a townhouse is a single structure.  It says it is: *A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof and with open space on at least two sides.*

The Feds are the ones that say they treat the entire group as a single structure.  You can only stand back and watch the train wreck.  The architect ignores The Fair Housing Act at his own peril.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 17, 2010)

The IRC says that "each townhouse shall be considered a separate building." [R317.2]

R322 is stupid because townhouses could be constructed independently over time...a fourth dwelling unit is attached to the end of three consecutive units and the other properties (on their own lots and with their own owners) need to be made accessible?

If you're going to treat four separate buildings on four separate lots as a single structure, then R322 would apply to a 100 lot SFR development.

Keep in mind that each townhouse has it's own permit and CO.

It's bad code.

There's a difference between how I believe architecture should be practiced and how the code should be enforced.

And having worked in homebuilding, the risk for non-compliant fee simple townhouses is pretty much zero.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 23, 2010)

Apparently there is a loophole here.  If you finish part of a basement of a ranch during initial construction (it must be planned that way from the beginning) then it is considered a multi-story and therefore meets the exception and Type B is not required.  Not a smart move to circumvent a requirement because of the ease of setting up a type B unit but a loophole is a loophole.

If the single story was over a crawlspace or was a slab then this loophole would not exist.


----------



## Forest (Sep 23, 2010)

jar546,

       I sure you know this one, CYA.Find the L & I inspector and get it in writing because has you are aware L & I is the all governing authority on accessibility in PA.You can also push the issue and have them go to the advisory board.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 23, 2010)

It was Jerry Seville and I already requested the letter.  As a backup, I spoke with Kim Paarlberg at ICC (Accessibility guru) to confirm this.  As a matter of fact, it is in the 2006 IBC Commentary too.


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 23, 2010)

We amended that section out of the IRC.

Not required.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 23, 2010)

rktect 1 said:
			
		

> We amended that section out of the IRC.  Not required.


That still won't exempt you from the federal requirements under the Fair Housing


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 23, 2010)

I agree with brudgers on this one. It is poorly written and FHA refuses to consider other possibilities. The old definition had a property line requirement (why was it taken out?)and our zoning still requires the property line to be classified as a townhouse. Consequently each dwelling unit in a town house is a seperate owner and building permit. Basically a SFR with zero side line setbacks.

We do not enforce FH or review for compliance.


----------



## peach (Sep 23, 2010)

they aren't a "single lot".. it's x number of separate lots... they are single family dwellings.  A 117 does not appear to be a referenced standard in IRC.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 23, 2010)

Peach, R320.  The only way these guys got out of this was because they are going to finish the basement as part of the initial build.  Even HUD is very clear on this.  Townhouses are SFR's but it is 1 structure.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 23, 2010)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Peach, R320.  The only way these guys got out of this was because they are going to finish the basement as part of the initial build.  Even HUD is very clear on this.  Townhouses are SFR's but it is 1 structure.


I agree with you that four attached units are required to meet FHA requirements.

I just don't agree that the wording of 320 can be consistently applied to require accessibility for four attached dwellings but not for four detached dwellings.

And that's the whole problem with the ICC approach.

The simple straightforward solution is to incorporate FHA requirements by reference.

But they suffer from NIH syndrome.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 24, 2010)

Here it is in a nutshell:

R320 States:



> R320.1 Scope. Where there are four or more dwelling units orsleeping units in a single structure, the provisions of Chapter 11
> 
> of the International Building Code for Group R-3 shall apply.


Then Chapter 11 of the IBC under General Exceptions states:



> 1107.7.2 *Multistory Unit*  A multistory dwelling or sleeping unit which is not provided with elevator service is not required to be a Type B unit.


The definition of multistory is:



> MULTISTORY UNIT. A dwelling unit or sleeping unit withhabitable space located on more than one story.


A ranch slab on grade or over a crawlspace does not have this exception available.  Simply finishing a portion of the basement in a ranch, however allows the requirements to be circumvented.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 24, 2010)

In my opinion, the definition of Multistory should be changed to read this way:



> A dwelling or sleeping unit with habitable space located on more than one story above grade plane


----------



## ewenme (Sep 24, 2010)

Since when do building departments/building officials enforce federal laws?  If the 'structure' is built under the IRC, it is by definition a single-family residence; townhouse fits this definition. Single-family housing is exempt from ADA requirements. The reason for keeping the 2-hour separation in townhouses [idaho] was to maintain the single-family status. Our Fair Housing Committee is now asking for the City to enforce ADA requirements in single-family homes. I think there will be a huge argument by the builders against any such requirements.  Voluntary compliance is always accepted. Forced compliance is always resisted.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 24, 2010)

jar546 said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the definition of Multistory should be changed to read this way:


It would just be easier to require buildings to comply with FHA and incorporate the document by reference in the same way that A117.1 is incorporated by reference.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 24, 2010)

ewenme said:
			
		

> Since when do building departments/building officials enforce federal laws?  If the 'structure' is built under the IRC, it is by definition a single-family residence; townhouse fits this definition. Single-family housing is exempt from ADA requirements. The reason for keeping the 2-hour separation in townhouses [idaho] was to maintain the single-family status. Our Fair Housing Committee is now asking for the City to enforce ADA requirements in single-family homes. I think there will be a huge argument by the builders against any such requirements.  Voluntary compliance is always accepted. Forced compliance is always resisted.


It is a requirement of the IRC as it directs you to Ch 11 of the IBC and ANSI 117.1 which is adopted and enforced as part of the state building code.  Has nothing to do with FHA because we don't enforce FHA.


----------

