# Townhome style units that are rented



## SC Contractor (Sep 16, 2021)

So as many of you know there is a new "space" in housing that is coming on fast and it's the massive influx of single family detached homes and townhomes that are purpose built to be rented. It's known as the "missing middle" in the housing market and serves a pretty big demand for millennials that now want more than an apartment but don't want to own, cut the grass, do maintenance etc. Many of the sites we're building are townhomes, some with individual property lines and some without. All of the townhomes are built to and specifically meet the definition of a townhome being no more than 3 stories, no more than 16 units, separated from foundation to roof, open on 2 sides (front and back), separate means of egress etc. In all the municipalities we build in we're governed by IRC and have to build a 2 hour firewall between the units. I have one county in which the building official is standing pretty hard on the idea that because they are rental they should be governed by IBC due to R2 stating "apartment homes". I'm having a hard time with this because we're absolutely building what meets the definition of townhome and I don't see anywhere that we can point to where ownership of a unit should dictate whether the construction should be dictated by IBC vs IRC. Any thoughts?


----------



## jar546 (Sep 16, 2021)

SC Contractor said:


> So as many of you know there is a new "space" in housing that is coming on fast and it's the massive influx of single family detached homes and townhomes that are purpose built to be rented. It's known as the "missing middle" in the housing market and serves a pretty big demand for millennials that now want more than an apartment but don't want to own, cut the grass, do maintenance etc. Many of the sites we're building are townhomes, some with individual property lines and some without. All of the townhomes are built to and specifically meet the definition of a townhome being no more than 3 stories, no more than 16 units, separated from foundation to roof, open on 2 sides (front and back), separate means of egress etc. In all the municipalities we build in we're governed by IRC and have to build a 2 hour firewall between the units. I have one county in which the building official is standing pretty hard on the idea that because they are rental they should be governed by IBC due to R2 stating "apartment homes". I'm having a hard time with this because we're absolutely building what meets the definition of townhome and I don't see anywhere that we can point to where ownership of a unit should dictate whether the construction should be dictated by IBC vs IRC. Any thoughts?


If they don't have a separate property line between them in Florida, they are not townhouses and treated as R2 with fire sprinklers.  Unlike Florida, SC does not bring the lot line into the definition.  You can always ask for a code section.  For the record, I agree with the building official's opinion but that does not mean that it is supported by the SC codes.  You can still separate townhouses on different lots and create an HOA.  If the developer has one lot for all of the townhouses, then they create R2's in my opinion.


----------



## cda (Sep 16, 2021)

SC Contractor said:


> So as many of you know there is a new "space" in housing that is coming on fast and it's the massive influx of single family detached homes and townhomes that are purpose built to be rented. It's known as the "missing middle" in the housing market and serves a pretty big demand for millennials that now want more than an apartment but don't want to own, cut the grass, do maintenance etc. Many of the sites we're building are townhomes, some with individual property lines and some without. All of the townhomes are built to and specifically meet the definition of a townhome being no more than 3 stories, no more than 16 units, separated from foundation to roof, open on 2 sides (front and back), separate means of egress etc. In all the municipalities we build in we're governed by IRC and have to build a 2 hour firewall between the units. I have one county in which the building official is standing pretty hard on the idea that because they are rental they should be governed by IBC due to R2 stating "apartment homes". I'm having a hard time with this because we're absolutely building what meets the definition of townhome and I don't see anywhere that we can point to where ownership of a unit should dictate whether the construction should be dictated by IBC vs IRC. Any thoughts?




Welcome


Not sure how he can do it, If two hour wall between each unit.


Go thru appeal process

Or


Resubmit and do not call them rentals.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 16, 2021)

The code does not care or address the ownership or rental of dwelling units. If the design meets the townhouse definition then they are townhouse single family dwelling units not R-2 single family dwelling units


----------



## SC Contractor (Sep 16, 2021)

We definitely don't see in the code where a property line or lack of one dictates that you should now be in the IBC world. It's what you're building and or the design of it that drives IBC vs IRC. We also don't see how occupancy should drive IBC vs IRC. It's almost silly to suggest that it should IMO. As mentioned we could just build them as townhome style "condos" and then decide to rent them all out


----------



## jar546 (Sep 16, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> The code does not care or address the ownership or rental of dwelling units. If the design meets the townhouse definition then they are townhouse single family dwelling units not R-2 single family dwelling units



The townhouses in question are apartment dwelling units and classified as R2.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 16, 2021)

I disagree

2018 IBC
[A] DWELLING. A building that contains one or two dwelling units used, *intended or designed to be used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied for living purposes.*
 IRC
[RB] DWELLING. Any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes.

[RB] TOWNHOUSE. 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 a yard or public way on not less than two sides.

[RB] DWELLING UNIT. *A single unit *providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. For the definition applicable in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6.

The legacy codes definitions

1997 UBC



1995 CABO one and two family dwelling code


----------



## jar546 (Sep 16, 2021)

Florida recognizes the difference between rental units and townhouses with their own property line on all 4 sides.  In FL, R2 without property lines requires fire sprinklers, with property lines does not.  I agree with FL on this.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 16, 2021)

Seems to me like there are at least two different and distinct way to look at this situation. Mainly building codes for construction purposes, and zoning/occupancy type. What I mean is there is a specific style of construction that would fall under "townhouses" which makes sense for the scenario the OP describes. Tenants want "more than an apartment" so the town home design is appealing for the reduction of noise from a "true" party wall design, building access, and no other tenants above or below. These tenants are not necessarily ready or able to buy a home yet so they are looking to rent. There are several "townhouse" style apartment buildings in my town due to the influence of the local University, some of them are individual lots and some are all on one lot, all are rentals. As far as the construction design and use by the occupant they are "townhouses" but as far as zoning laws, real estate descriptions, and fire department they are treated differently. For example one set of these are each on their own lot and owned by different people and are treated as individual homes whereas a nearly identically built set of units a couple of streets over is all on one lot and is considered an apartment building. If a new project was submitted to us for review that was many units on one lot I would assume it would be treated like an apartment building in every way except for the actual construction design. I think it could be designed and built like townhomes but I don't think they would be able to use the IRC prescriptive designs due to the limitations outlined in R101.2. It would probably be required to use the IBC.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 16, 2021)

Our zoning still requires a property line between townhouse's and which follow the code definition of having to be open on two side which I believe should still be in the I-Code definitions. 

Under the IRC you can build an unlimited number of townhouse dwelling units each one with a 2 hour fire separation which under the IBC creates individual fire areas. They have been built this way for 40 or 50 years now and there is absolutely no reason to classify them as R-2 and make them follow the IBC which requires a full blown NFPA 13 system in an R-2


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 16, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> Our zoning still requires a property line between townhouse's and which follow the code definition of having to be open on two side which I believe should still be in the I-Code definitions.
> 
> Under the IRC you can build an unlimited number of townhouse dwelling units each one with a 2 hour fire separation which under the IBC creates individual fire areas. They have been built this way for 40 or 50 years now and there is absolutely no reason to classify them as R-2 and make them follow the IBC which requires a full blown NFPA 13 system in an R-2


Yes, if there were individual property lines I would agree. On one big lot though I think you would be limited to IBC based on scoping requirements and occupancy classifications, I guess that's the debate though. I think it will also vary state by state to some degree.


----------



## tbz (Sep 16, 2021)

SC,

Welcome to the Forum, as you can see it is going to come down to how your local AHJ interprets the definitions, however don't focus on if they are rented or not, but stay focused on if they are on the same lot or not.

From my interpretation of the model code, if each unit is on its own lot, then IRC, if you have 3 or more units on a single lot, then IBC.

The title of the IRC specifically notes "1 and 2 family"  as thus once the property is housing more than (2) dwelling units, by definition the model code shoves you over to the IBC. 

If the current project has separate lots, I would fight it, simply ask the building official, if I am building a single family home, 1 unit with my intention to rent it out, does this mean I have to build it under the IBC?  

Answer of course not, if it fits in the IRC specifications.

Simply Number of dwellings on a designated single lot.....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 16, 2021)

The International Residential Code® (IRC®) was created to serve as a complete, comprehensive code regulating the construction of single-family houses, two-family houses (duplexes) *and buildings consisting of three or more townhouse units



			https://www3.iccsafe.org/cs/committeeArea/pdf_file/RE_03_75_06.pdf
		

*
CHAPTER 3 BUILDING PLANNING SECTION R317.2 
IRC Interpretation No. 75-06 2003 Edition Issued: 04-18-2007
R317.2 Townhouses. Each townhouse shall be considered a separate building and shall be separated by fire-resistance rated wall assemblies meeting the requirements of Section R302 for exterior walls.
Exception: A common 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 33 through 42. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R317.3.
REFERENCED SECTIONS: R101.2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures. Exception: Existing buildings undergoing repair, alteration or additions, and change of occupancy shall be permitted to comply with the International Existing Building Code. 
SECTION R202 DEFINITIONS LOT. A portion or parcel of land considered as a unit. 
LOT LINE. A line dividing one lot from another, or from a street or any public place. 
TOWNHOUSE. 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. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Q: Is a common 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall, in accordance with the exception to Section R317.2 of the International Residential Code, permitted for separation of individual townhouse dwelling units *when separation incorporates a lot line between each townhouse dwelling unit?*

A: *Yes. The townhouse provisions in the International Residential Code are not based on the presence, or lack thereof, of either a property line or lot line between single-family dwelling units within a townhouse building*. Section R317.2 requires separation by two 1-hour fire-resistance-rated walls with exposure from both sides, or by a common 2-hour fireresistance-rated wall per the exception.* ______________________________________________________*


----------



## steveray (Sep 17, 2021)

Soooo...Dos Florida have detached SFD on the same lot (condos)? Do they call them R2 if rented?


----------



## jar546 (Sep 17, 2021)

steveray said:


> Soooo...Dos Florida have detached SFD on the same lot (condos)? Do they call them R2 if rented?


The definition applying the property line applies to Townhouses only.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 17, 2021)

Very interesting topic with terminology issues. 

We have several 6-unit apartments tied together meeting the definition of apartments not separated by a lot line,  however they are marketed as Townhome-apartment living. They are not classified as Townhomes separated from the foundation to the roof, so they can not be sold as individual units, but the 6-unit apartment building on its own lot can be sold as one building. Where this gets muddled is when some smart guy wants to do a condo and separation comes into play. OP indicates a new smart guy scenario. Where the real heartburn comes into play is that separation wall and property line issue.


mtlogcabin said:


> The code does not care or address the ownership or rental of dwelling units.


Agree with this statement


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 17, 2021)

jar546 said:


> If they don't have a separate property line between them in Florida, they are not townhouses and treated as R2 with fire sprinklers.


The fire requirements are at the heart of this, and why it's going to come down to state requirements. And really, it comes down to sprinklers or not. Everybody seems to have opinions and many people here scoff at the idea of the extra expense added, but if an "apartment" complex is being constructed the intention is to make money, of course they're going to want to do it as cheap as possible. Personally I think enforcing sprinklers is a good thing.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 17, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> And really, it comes down to sprinklers or not


No there are accessibility requirements that may come into play depending on the number of units on site.
An R-2 VB building is limited to a 7,000 sq foot area. There are no area limitations under the IRC
Single exit path of travel is limited to 125 ft in a sprinklered building. If it is not sprinklered then you are required 2 exits. No maximum travel distance requirements in the IRC

If two exits are provided then egress windows are not required if sprinkled
accessible parking maybe required
Type "A" accessible units maybe required based on the number of units on a lot

I am sure I can find more things that may be applicable to an R-2 that are not required for a townhouse under the IRC.


----------



## SC Contractor (Sep 17, 2021)

We've all established (at least here in SC) that the presence of or lack of a lot line does not drive IBC vs IRC. This guy is taking the stance that because we plan to rent them he wants them IBC. It's crazy, we could permit them as townhome style condos under a horizontal regime and then decide to rent them later.....


----------



## steveray (Sep 17, 2021)

Then I would decide to rent them later....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 17, 2021)

If he is the BO official then go to the county attorney with the ICC Committee interpretation and discuss it with him/her. I bet the attorney will agree the BO has no legal standing to require you use the IBC for townhouse construction.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 17, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> No there are accessibility requirements that may come into play depending on the number of units on site.
> An R-2 VB building is limited to a 7,000 sq foot area. There are no area limitations under the IRC
> Single exit path of travel is limited to 125 ft in a sprinklered building. If it is not sprinklered then you are required 2 exits. No maximum travel distance requirements in the IRC
> 
> ...


Very good point.


----------

