# Change of plan - openings between townhouses



## Code Neophyte (Dec 28, 2010)

Only in our jurisdiction, I swear...

Permit issued for two, attached, single-family dwellings (not really 'townhouses' as in the thread title).  Each unit is built on its own parcel, with a lot line in the center.  Built as 'spec.s', now a prospective buyer comes along and says, "I'll take the right unit, and my mother-in-law will take the left unit - AND, we want to create doorways between the units on the main and lower levels."

So effectively, it now becomes either a two-family dwelling, OR a really screwed up single-family.

Aside from combining the parcels, what would you do to allow this to move forward (or WOULD you???) and to prevent the two spaces which have the appearance and design of either a two-family dwelling or two, single-family attached dwellings to be occupied differently or sold as such in the future?


----------



## Coug Dad (Dec 28, 2010)

I would call it an I-2 because anyone who wants a door to share their house with the mother in law is obviously insane.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Dec 28, 2010)

That may be the funniest thing ever said on this board!!! LMAO!!!!!


----------



## Code Neophyte (Dec 28, 2010)

Now if I can hijack my own thread with a more general question - or two, actually:

1.  Can there be openings (protected, of course) between dwelling units in two-family buildings or townhouses?  (I can't see where it is addressed specifically one way or the other).

2.  Can a two-family dwelling be constructed across a lot line and even have separate ownership from one side to the other?  I can't find a definition for two-family dwellings in the code, nor any reference to ownership.


----------



## Frank (Dec 28, 2010)

Looks like time for a modification.

Allow protected openings with it functioning as a single dwelling unit, the modification being that the doors will be replaced with rated wall construction when/if they are transferred to separate ownership.

Combining the lots is likely not an option as would create a planning issue with two kitchens and problems when trying to separate later.


----------



## Coug Dad (Dec 28, 2010)

If it can be accomodated through zoning, it sounds like a large single family dwelling.


----------



## globe trekker (Dec 28, 2010)

I would allow the openings between the two. After the parcels are joined and recorded at the courthouse

as one parcel, simply install cased openings on the levels desired and it now becomes an atypical one

family residence. No protected opening requirements.

Typically, only one structure is allowed on any one parcel, unless your AHJ has ordinances to allow

others. The IBC would classify these building as R-3. Check your Zoning regs.

What someone ' might ' do to this structure in the future will be up to the adopted codes, ...desired

changes, Zoning requirements, etc., etc.

FWIW, Coug Dad has the common sense and right occupancy group classification.

.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 28, 2010)

We still call them townhouses when we have 2 units with a property line running through them. We would either combine the lots together and remove one of the kitchens and all the smoke alarms where interconnected and call it a single family residence or under alternate means and methods allow a common opening between two dwelling units provided it was protected


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 28, 2010)

Where in the code does it say I can only have one kitchen?

Allow the openings, do not change the status of the lots with the county, ownership of lots must be under one entity and include note on permit that two separate dwellings can be re-established when openings are closed and properly rated. Done.


----------



## pyrguy (Dec 28, 2010)

Had a SFR review once that had 7, count 'em seven, kitchens. Had a kitchen in the basement, three inside (one "show kitchen", one catering and another in the guest quarters), and one outside on the main and three upstairs, one in the master, one for the kids suite and one for the nanny. Too many for me but that is what they wanted.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 28, 2010)

> Where in the code does it say I can only have one kitchen?


Local zoning only not building code requirement


----------



## Code Neophyte (Dec 28, 2010)

Min&Max said:
			
		

> ... ownership of lots must be under one entity...


How is this condition imposed?  As a deed restriction?


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 28, 2010)

Prior to issuing the permit for the wall penetrations I would require the owner to produce a copy of the deeds for each property. If the owner on each is identical I would issue the permit and note on the permit that the permit is creating a single family dwelling that crosses the property line. Individual dwelling units may be re-established once openings are closed and meet minimum separation requirements(2hr).


----------



## Yankee (Dec 28, 2010)

Let them have doors.

It is not a "townhouse" per the "townhouse" definition so it isn't really two single family dwellings but is a duplex (it meets the definition for duplex). Rate the doors to equal the required wall separation rating for duplexes. Duplex structures may have (but aren't required to have) different owners (as in condo units where the property line is between the units).

There is no code or zoning reason there cannot be doors between the units to be used at the owners prerogative that I am aware of.


----------



## TimNY (Dec 28, 2010)

I don't think we have a two-family in my jurisdiction, so bear with me if I am incorrect, but.. R317.1 Two-family dwellings allows 3/4hr doors between the units.

The definition of townhouse precludes 2 single family dwellings from being considered townhouses.

I do not see anything in the code that requires each part of a two-family home on it's own parcel, nor to I see anything requiring a two-family home to be on a single parcel.

I would tend to believe it must be a single parcel *but* that is just my gut instinct, I don't have anything to substantiate that.


----------



## peach (Dec 28, 2010)

I'd call it a single family and join the lots (or whatever is required in your jurisdiction)... if they split it later, the re-establish a (probably) one hour not two closure to the opening.  As far as kitchens, many of my Jewish friends have 2 if they keep kosher.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 28, 2010)

TimNY said:
			
		

> I don't think we have a two-family in my jurisdiction, so bear with me if I am incorrect, but.. R317.1 Two-family dwellings allows 3/4hr doors between the units.The definition of townhouse precludes 2 single family dwellings from being considered townhouses.
> 
> I do not see anything in the code that requires each part of a two-family home on it's own parcel, nor to I see anything requiring a two-family home to be on a single parcel.
> 
> I would tend to believe it must be a single parcel *but* that is just my gut instinct, I don't have anything to substantiate that.


Doors -- probably but I didn't check your reference

Correct townhouse defined is three or more

Parcel ~  if it must be on a single parcel that would have to be per zoning. Nothing in the building code requires a single parcel. All condo units are on separate "parcels". Nor does the building code require two parcels.


----------



## JBI (Dec 28, 2010)

Party Wall?


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 28, 2010)

I think the issue is that units are owned by different individuals, a man owns one and his mother owns the other. Different ownerships require the rated wall.

If the man owned both units, then there is no reason to require that his single family dwelling have a rated wall.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 28, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> I think the issue is that units are owned by different individuals, a man owns one and his mother owns the other. Different ownerships require the rated wall.If the man owned both units, then there is no reason to require that his single family dwelling have a rated wall.


No, ownership never plays a part in the code.

It simply needs the 1 hr separation required by a duplex plus the 3/4hrs(?) doors


----------



## cda (Dec 28, 2010)

Does the code allow any openings / penetrations in the 1 hour separation wall????


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 29, 2010)

Could do a modification under IBC 715 Opening Protectives and have two 1 hour doors one on each side similarly to what is seen between hotel suites.  This way if neccessary at least one of the doors can be locked.


----------



## TimNY (Dec 29, 2010)

I'm with Yankee on this one until proven otherwise..

I don't think there are any requirements in the Residential Code to prohibit it.  If you were in the Building Code you would run into fire walls/party walls.

Zoning may play a role.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 29, 2010)

I'm batting .200 again!

Yankee is correct as usual, lot line separation is for townhouses.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 29, 2010)

R302.1 Exterior walls.

Construction, projections, openings and penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessory buildings shall comply with Table R302.1.

Exceptions:

1. Walls, projections, openings or penetrations in walls perpendicular to the line used to determine the fire separation distance .

2. Walls of dwellings and accessory structures located on the same lot .

They are not on the same lot therefore according to Table 301 openings are not permmitted within 3 ft of a lot line. Yankee is correct in that ownership is not talked about in the code but lot lines are

FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE. The distance measured from the building face to one of the following:

1. To the closest interior lot line ; or

2. To the centerline of a street, an alley or public way; or

3. To an imaginary line between two buildings on the lot .


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 29, 2010)

If the zoning would allow for a duplex, replat into a single lot, and add a rated door with automatic closer. If the zoning would only allow only for single family, replat into a single lot, add a door or cased opening of your choosing, and interconnect all smokes.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 29, 2010)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> If the zoning would allow for a duplex, replat into a single lot, and add a rated door with automatic closer. If the zoning would only allow only for single family, replat into a single lot, add a door or cased opening of your choosing, and interconnect all smokes.


Agree you have to do something with the existing lot line in order to allow the opening.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 29, 2010)

Can you show me the code section that it is an exterior wall between two-family dwellings?


----------



## Yankee (Dec 29, 2010)

I believe section R302.1 Exterior Walls discusses muliple individual structures on a lot or near each other across a lot line, hence exterior walls. The term "interior lot line" does not mean a lot line interior of a building, but instead, interior to a lot.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 29, 2010)

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.

 R106.2 Site plan.

The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site and distances from lot lines

We have parent lots with interior lot lines creating sub-lots Example the parent lot would be #123 the sub lots would be #123A and #123B. But they are still individuall lots.


----------



## peach (Dec 31, 2010)

Enforce it as separate lots.. let them re-join the lots for one structure.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 2, 2011)

Require a 45 minute rated door for the required 1 hour separation in the two family dwelling and issue the permit.

That's far and away better than the unrated door which will go in if you deny the permit.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Jan 3, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Require a 45 minute rated door for the required 1 hour separation in the two family dwelling and issue the permit.That's far and away better than the unrated door which will go in if you deny the permit.


This was similar to my first thought, but......(I'm braced for a barrage of admonishments for "what-ifing"), it appears that their idea is to have a cased opening, leaving the units completely open to one another.  I would fully expect them to remove the rated door after C of O, and thereby defeat the purpose thereof.  The structure more closely resembles a two-winged SFD, so I think treating it as such (single electrical service, interconnected smokes) is the more appropriate way to proceed, given the knowledge we currently have.

Disagree?


----------



## Yankee (Jan 3, 2011)

Do both.

Rated door and interconnected. If they complian about the interconnected then you can go down that road but chances are they won't. If they remove the door, you're covered.

The code does not care if there is a single electrical service for two units as long as both can get to the overcurrant devices.


----------



## GHRoberts (Jan 3, 2011)

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> The structure more closely resembles a two-winged SFD, so I think treating it as such (single electrical service, interconnected smokes) is the more appropriate way to proceed, given the knowledge we currently have.Disagree?


As I said above: the halves are owned by different parties. Therefore you should not do what you intend.

To do what you want would require that the same party own both halves.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 3, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> As I said above: the halves are owned by different parties. Therefore you should not do what you intend.To do what you want would require that the same party own both halves.


Where in the code is that written?

It is a duplex dwelling unit that has been "condo-ized". The building code does not care if it is a duplex structure or a duplex condo structure.

A rated door between the units consistent with the wall rating. Done.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Jan 3, 2011)

Do these places have separate electrical meters? I would imagine they do.

I'm not an electrician, but I think that interconnecting the smokes would open a huge can of worms with regard to the entire electrical system(s).

Also, connecting them as one dwelling would be problematic with regards to the electrical system in general.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 3, 2011)

Conversion would be easy. One would just have to link the last interconnected smoke in unit A to the first interconnected smoke in unit B. To identify, the last smoke in A will have only one romex cable feeding the smoke. The first smoke in B will have direct supply from outside the smoke alarm system (usually 14/2 or 12/2 WG). Isolate the supply wire feeding B and remove from smoke alarm system. Then, run 3-wire link from unit A to unit B and interconnect.

All this assuming a typical installation that can be verified with some basic testing.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 3, 2011)

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> This was similar to my first thought, but......(I'm braced for a barrage of admonishments for "what-ifing"), it appears that their idea is to have a cased opening, leaving the units completely open to one another.  I would fully expect them to remove the rated door after C of O, and thereby defeat the purpose thereof.  The structure more closely resembles a two-winged SFD, so I think treating it as such (single electrical service, interconnected smokes) is the more appropriate way to proceed, given the knowledge we currently have.Disagree?


Yep. I would treat it as two family since in the long run someone will try to use it that way.


----------



## peach (Jan 5, 2011)

I've seen (several times) a stipulation put (by the building department) in the public record that when ownership changes, the 1 hour wall is to be restored.  $19 filing fee.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Jan 5, 2011)

Thanks, Peach.  I was thinking in the back of my mind that it really could be as simple as that.  I'm having a meeting this morning to discuss the situation; may have more information later in the day.

thanks again..


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

Guys, help me out here. For those of you who say the code allows openings in dwelling unit separation, where are you getting that? 317.1 ( 302.3 in '09) requires 1 hr wall assembly. It goes on to talk about through penetrations and membrane penetrations, but nowhere does it allow openings, rated or not.

As many of you have said, I'm sure I could and would make it work through deed attachments and/or zoning, but in the code as written, I do not think openings would be permitted.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> but in the code as written, I do not think openings would be permitted.


I agree.  Nor are they expressly _prohibited_ by the code as written.

I see a code change proposal coming......


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 5, 2011)

I think texasbo is correct. Under the IRC, there appears to be no exception for adding a door assembly, rated or not.

I change my solution to the OP to be: Replat into one lot, interconnect all smokes, and add a door or cased opening of your choosing.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Jan 5, 2011)

Jobsaver,

I can see why it would be relatively easy to interconect the smokes and eliminate one end from the 2nd meter. But, what about the rest of the wiring. If the units are combined into one, can it still have 2 meters? I think not. I suppose they would need to install a sub panel from the one power source, disconnet the meter from "unit 2" and get power to the 2nd unit from the 1st unit(??)

Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I believe it would be a potentially hazardous condition to have 2 power sources to the same building (if they were combined).


----------



## north star (Jan 5, 2011)

*@ @ @ @*

Glennman,

If the services and all associated circuitry are already separated, where's

the hazard [ no backfeeds that I can determine ]?.......All that is being

combined [ essentially ] is a piece of paper combining the two separate

parcels/structures in to one parcel/structure..........All existing systems

would remain as is.



*@ @ @ @*


----------



## Yankee (Jan 5, 2011)

Think about other rated partition walls though. In other scenarios there will be a rated exit hallway with (rated) doors from adjacent units opening into the hallway. So although the residential code doesn't expressly prohibit or allow a doorway, this concept as a means of compliance with the intent of the code in this unusual situation is permitted by the building code with other residential uses.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 5, 2011)

Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> If the units are combined into one, can it still have 2 meters?


Yes. There is no reason a single family home could not have multiple meters. I do recommend isolating the power that feeds one of the smoke alarm systems, by isolating the feed into its own jbox. Then, as previously posted, proceed to interconnect all smoke alarms on the smoke alarm circuit remaining.

Each hemisphere of the "new" single-family home would be individually metered, except for the smoke-alarm circuit which will pull from one side or the other.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 5, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Think about other rated partition walls though. In other scenarios there will be a rated exit hallway with (rated) doors from adjacent units opening into the hallway. So although the residential code doesn't expressly prohibit or allow a doorway, this concept as a means of compliance with the intent of the code in this unusual situation is permitted by the building code with other residential uses.


This is the very conclusion that led to many of our previous answers. Still, I think Texasbo is correct. There are places that the IRC and IBC just do not interpolate.

One book for one and two-family dwellings. A different book for the balance.

Note that the IPC and IMC have exceptions explicitly spelled out when excepting one and two family dwellings.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Think about other rated partition walls though. In other scenarios there will be a rated exit hallway with (rated) doors from adjacent units opening into the hallway. So although the residential code doesn't expressly prohibit or allow a doorway, this concept as a means of compliance with the intent of the code in this unusual situation is permitted by the building code with other residential uses.


Corridors are protected in one way or another. Furthermore, there is not a single situation in either the IRC or IBC that I'm aware of that allows a door in a wall directly on a property line.

The code can't itemize everything that is prohibited. It says a "1 hour wall assembly", then outlines what you can have in that wall, and that's limited to very specific through-penetrations and membrane penetrations. Would you allow the wall to have 75% windows? Why not, the code doesn't prohibit them? (a question, not a challenge)

In my opinion, if you buy the assumption that openings are permitted, then you have to allow nonrated ones, because nowhere does it say that openings in dwelling unit separation walls have to be rated. Why? Because in my opinion it doesn't allow them.

Again, with all of that said, I would make it work; I'm just talking about the code, as written.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

Guys, talk to me about your interpretation of services.

E3501.2 specifically requires only one service for one and two family dwellings.

230.2, 2005 NEC allows only one service per building, and has an exception for multiple occupancy buildings where there is no room to make service equipment available for all occupants.

Beyond that, how can you justify more than one service per building?

Sorry, I don't have access to a later edition NEC right now, maybe it's in a newer one?


----------



## texas transplant (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo,

Your question about electrical service goes right back to the heart of the problem, what is this structure and is it one building or two?     E3501.2 allows only one service per one and two family dwelling.   If this is a duplex, it gets one service, if it is two attached single familys, it get one per side or building.

So is this one or two buildings?

I understand your point that the code says "one hour rated assembly"  If openings are not a part of the perscriptive code (IRC), would that mean if you want to have an opening that the opening would have to be as allowed and rated as per the IBC?

I am not sure of the answer in my own head now after following the thread, but those two questions seem to be the ones that need answered.   After that all the pieces fall into place in my mind.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 5, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> There is no reason a single family home could not have multiple meters.


Incorrect answer.

Texasbo, one service allowed per the 2008NEC per 230.2. Thanks for the correction. I have been incorrectly taught, and know of two new local homes having mother-in-law quarters having isolated services. Oops!

Edit post: I have now been told by our Electrical Inspector that in both those cases, a single service was established serving two individual meters.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

> what is this structure and is it one building or two?


In my opinion, it sounds as if it was built as a single structure with a property line running through the middle of it. As others have said, I think there should be a code change that addresses this. In my opinion, it should be the same as townhouses; two exterior walls or a single 2 hour wall.



> I understand your point that the code says "one hour rated assembly" If openings are not a part of the perscriptive code (IRC), would that mean if you want to have an opening that the opening would have to be as allowed and rated as per the IBC?


In my opinion, the IRC as written does not permit openings, period. It would take administrative approval of alternate method to put openings in the wall. I would only allow it under very specific circumstances, such as the one posed by the O.P. The code doesn't care who owns it, but it does care if there's a property line, and it does care if it is a dwelling unit separation.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 5, 2011)

texas transplant said:
			
		

> texasbo,Your question about electrical service goes right back to the heart of the problem, what is this structure and is it one building or two? E3501.2 allows only one service per one and two family dwelling. If this is a duplex, it gets one service, if it is two attached single familys, it get one per side or building.
> 
> So is this one or two buildings?
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as "two attached single familys" under the code. I agree that generally a building is only permitted one service, UNLESS it is a townhouse (three or more attached single family dwelling units OR if approved by the BO and each service is labeled "one of two" and "two of two"). So label the services.

This is one building with two dwelling units, it is a duplex.

Yes, the opening can be rated/approved as if this were an IBC building, as any construction in a single family/duplex MAY meet the IBC instead of IRC if desired.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 5, 2011)

This thread rocks! If Jeff had a nickel for everytime I learned something important on this forum . . .


----------



## Yankee (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Corridors are protected in one way or another. Furthermore, there is not a single situation in either the IRC or IBC that I'm aware of that allows a door in a wall directly on a property line.The code can't itemize everything that is prohibited. It says a "1 hour wall assembly", then outlines what you can have in that wall, and that's limited to very specific through-penetrations and membrane penetrations. Would you allow the wall to have 75% windows? Why not, the code doesn't prohibit them? (a question, not a challenge)
> 
> In my opinion, if you buy the assumption that openings are permitted, then you have to allow nonrated ones, because nowhere does it say that openings in dwelling unit separation walls have to be rated. Why? Because in my opinion it doesn't allow them.
> 
> Again, with all of that said, I would make it work; I'm just talking about the code, as written.


Every rated wall in an exit corridor has a door in it . . . the door is rated as well. Windows would be allowed if rated as well. In fact, they are OFTEN installed and allowed in certain doors. Equivalency might also permit an overhead rated fire door that slams down over unrated glazing or openings when the alarm is triggered . . . . it's amazing what one can do if one wants to and has enough money . . .

The code does not care about who owns what, or property lines with respect to anything except protection of building separations and the resulting required protections. If the wall(s) or areas near or on the property line are rated appropriately, that is all the building code cares about.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as "two attached single familys" under the code. I agree that generally a building is only permitted one service, UNLESS it is a townhouse (three or more attached single family dwelling units OR if approved by the BO and each service is labeled "one of two" and "two of two"). So label the services.This is one building with two dwelling units, it is a duplex.
> 
> Yes, the opening can be rated/approved as if this were an IBC building, as any construction in a single family/duplex MAY meet the IBC instead of IRC if desired.


Yankee - help me out with a code section on this. All I'm seeing is R101.2 which says the IRC "..shall apply to the construction of...one and two family dwellings"

What section are you referencing that would allow the use of the IBC for an opening at the property line for a two family dwelling?

Also, what code section are you referencing regarding the labeling of the meters to circumvent 230.2?


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Every rated wall in an exit corridor has a door in it . . . the door is rated as well. Windows would be allowed if rated as well. In fact, they are OFTEN installed and allowed in certain doors. Equivalency might also permit an overhead rated fire door that slams down over unrated glazing or openings when the alarm is triggered . . . . it's amazing what one can do if one wants to and has enough money . . .The code does not care about who owns what, or property lines with respect to anything except protection of building separations and the resulting required protections. If the wall(s) or areas near or on the property line are rated appropriately, that is all the building code cares about.


That was my point. The code specifically allows rated/protected openings in a corridor. Someone, maybe you, used openings in a corridor as a comparison. Of course it allows openings, because a corridor is protected.

The IRC does not allow openings in a tenant separation wall. Period. When you walk through that door and across that property line, you are not entering a protected space. The IBC doesn't allow doors at a property line either.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Also, what code section are you referencing regarding the labeling of the meters to circumvent 230.2?


Combination of 230.2©(3) and 232.2(E)

(I grant you I have never approved except for under 232.2(D))


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Guys, help me out here. For those of you who say the code allows openings in dwelling unit separation, where are you getting that? 317.1 ( 302.3 in '09) requires 1 hr wall assembly. It goes on to talk about through penetrations and membrane penetrations, but nowhere does it allow openings, rated or not.As many of you have said, I'm sure I could and would make it work through deed attachments and/or zoning, but in the code as written, I do not think openings would be permitted.


The IRC does not prohibit such openings explicitly.

Therefore, the provisions of the IBC may be used to address such openings.

In my mind, the opening isn't ideal.

But it is impossible to prevent one from being installed even if you prohibit it during permitting.

Therefore, make the situation reasonably safe.

In fact, one might reasonably argue that the addition of what is essentially a horizontal exit makes both dwellings safer.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Combination of 230.2©(3) and 232.2(E)(I grant you I have never approved except for under 232.2(D))


230.2 ©(3) is under capacities, but like you, under special conditions I wouldn't necessarilly have a problem invoking it. The IRC, however, seems to not want us to do it.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Corridors are protected in one way or another. Furthermore, there is not a single situation in either the IRC or IBC that I'm aware of that allows a door in a wall directly on a property line.


Happens all the time with condominiums.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as "two attached single familys" under the code.


Sure there is. There is just no such thing as a structure consisting of only two townhouses. One could construct two Single Family Dwellings with no setback to the common property line.  Each would require its own rated wall.



			
				Yankee said:
			
		

> This is one building with two dwelling units, it is a duplex.


There is no such thing as a duplex in the building code.



			
				Yankee;37797Yes said:
			
		

> Absolutely.


----------



## texas transplant (Jan 5, 2011)

Yankee,

Under the IRC, a two dwelling building is a duplex (and its one building), but if I want to build my two single family attached homes under the IBC not the IRC, I put a fire wall that meets Section 705 and put in the opening with a fire door that meets section 715.  I now have two buildings don't I?  Then I get two services and makes two "attached single family" buildings.  The opening can be up to 120 sq ft per floor level I think.

I am not really wanting to argue, but logic tells me it is stupid if I can build a single stand alone home and its called a building, or I can build three or more attached single familys and call each one a building, but I can't attach just two and call them buildings. That is the part that doesn't make sense to me.

On this whole question, I tend to agree with whoever said make them install a one hour door on both sides of the wall like adjoining hotel rooms.   It might not be the most code correct answer, but my gut tells me it will be better than denying the opening and having them install it after the C of O with no permit.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Happens all the time with condominiums.


At a property line?


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The IRC does not prohibit such openings explicitly.Therefore, the provisions of the IBC may be used to address such openings.
> 
> In my mind, the opening isn't ideal.
> 
> ...


I agree with you that it will be installed anyway, and agree that the proper course of action is to make it work.

But just for academic purposes, let's talk code. Something doesn't have to be expressly prohibited to not be allowed. If your contention that the IRC doesn't prohibit it, why bother yourself with IBC? Why not just case the whole thing open and put windows in the rest of it. The IRC specifies how a tenant separation wall is to be built and what kind of penetrations it can have. Openings aren't on the menu.

Nor are they on the menu in the IBC, at property lines, that I'm aware of.


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 5, 2011)

First I would not spend to much time researching the code book to determine if this was possible. All to often the "Book" says we can't do something that there is no adequate reason to not allow.

1). Build structure as originally planned but provide headers where future openings are desired.

2). Interconnect smoke alarms as previously described

3). Complete structure, do final inspection and issue C.O.

4). Owner applies for permit to provide openings in common wall.

5). Issue permit and also have owner label utility meters/panals as 1 of 2 at lot 3A and 2 of 2 at lot 3B

6). Do final inspection for second permit.

Mother-in-law has separate utilities and can pay as required. Property tax statement will come as two statements to both addresses which HAVE to be owned by one party. Mother-in-law re-imburses son-in-law for her share of property taxes. They can can live basically in the same dwelling but have separate addresses and separate spaces with separate expenses. When mother-in-law leaves for her final resting place the openings can once again be filled in to meet minimum requirements and the mother-in-laws former "space can be marketed as a single family dwelling. All are happy except some _____ retentive bureaucrats.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 5, 2011)

The reason it is a two family dwelling (sorry for the "duplex" designation) instead of two connected single family dwellings (like suggested) is because the rating between "single family dwellings" (such as TOWNHOMES) is more restrictive than that between the two dwelling units of a two family dwelling.

I agree with brudgers that door opening directly onto or over a property line happens all the time with condos. Walk out the condo door, and you are on another parcel.

Two family dwellings often both have doors that open into a common foyer and then to the exterior door.

I think in the big picture this is approvable. There are a kajillion different scenarios and only one book. You have to get to the intent and get out of the lack of wording.

And we cannot dictate ownership based on the building code in any scenario. Doesn't apply.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

This is a good thread.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> At a property line?


Yes.

Each condominium unit has property lines in all three dimensions.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> The reason it is a two family dwelling (sorry for the "duplex" designation) instead of two connected single family dwellings (like suggested) is because the rating between "single family dwellings" (such as TOWNHOMES) is more restrictive than that between the two dwelling units of a two family dwelling.I agree with brudgers that door opening directly onto or over a property line happens all the time with condos. Walk out the condo door, and you are on another parcel.
> 
> Two family dwellings often both have doors that open into a common foyer and then to the exterior door.
> 
> ...


Yep.

Imagine a two family dwelling with a single covered front entry from which each unit can be accessed via its own door.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

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?


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

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.


Would you consider the wall between the dwelling unit and the common space a dwelling unit separation wall?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 6, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Would you consider the wall between the dwelling unit and the common space a dwelling unit separation wall?


Suppose it's just a cantilevered roof.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 6, 2011)

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?


 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.


----------



## incognito (Jan 6, 2011)

We have dozens of these dwellings. From the street they appear to be a duplex---one lot and the dwellings sharing a common wall. But they are not on one lot. They are on two separate and distinct lots with each lot having a separate and unique legal description. Typically the lots are identified as lot 1A and lot 1B, lot 2A and lot 2B and so on throughout the development. Due to there being two separate dwellings sharing a common wall at the property line we require a two hour wall for separation purposes. Had never really considered the potential for someone wanting to punch a hole in the common wall. After reading most of the comments I guess I would be the most comfortable with Min&Max solution. Seems to be the easiest overall and only dealing with one property owner would have both short and long term benefits. 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.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 6, 2011)

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.


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.

However, if there is actually a property/lot line, I'd still like to know how you reconcile openings that are immediately adjacent to it.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Suppose it's just a cantilevered roof.


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?


----------



## texasbo (Jan 6, 2011)

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.


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.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 6, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> property/lot line


Property lines are not a feature of the code.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 7, 2011)

There is no difference between a property line and a lot line

Condominiums do not create seperate lots or parcels

FYI

The difference between a _condominium_ and an _apartment_ is purely legal: there is no way to know a condo from an apartment simply by looking at or visiting the building. What defines a condominium is the form of ownership. The same building developed as a condominium (and _sold_ as individual units to different _owners_) could actually be built someplace else as an apartment building (the developers would retain ownership and _rent_ individual units to different _tenants_).

Technically, a condominium is a collection of individual home units along with the land upon which they sit. Individual home ownership within a condominium is construed as ownership of only the air space confining the boundaries of the home _(Anglo-Saxon law systems; different elsewhere)_. The boundaries of that space are specified by a legal document known as a Declaration, filed of record with the local governing authority. Typically these boundaries will include the drywall surrounding a room, allowing the homeowner to make some interior modifications without impacting the common area. Anything outside this boundary is held in an undivided ownership interest by a corporation established at the time of the condominium’s creation. The corporation holds this property in trust on behalf of the homeowners as a group–-it may not have ownership itself.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 7, 2011)

Thanks mt. Good primer on this subject.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jan 7, 2011)

Francis Vineyard had the best answer (aside from Coug Dad's observation on the use group).  Grant a modification to have a rated lockable door on each side of the wall, similar to what is seen between hotel suites.  The main problem would be coming up with a frame detail that would allow construction on one side to collapse in a fire yet still leave the rated door on the other side intact.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 7, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The difference between a _condominium_ and an _apartment_ is purely legal:


The difference between code compliance and non-compliance is also purely legal.

On the other hand, apartments may have condominium ownership or the building may be owned fee simple.

And either may be rented to non-owner tenants.


----------



## ewenme (Jan 7, 2011)

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...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 7, 2011)

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


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 7, 2011)

In addition to defining the structure, or zoning, the number of electrical services allowed per NEC 230.2 still overshadows this thread. Supposing the opening is allowed and the building is construed to be a single SFR, would an allowance for two services be acceptable under Special Occupancies (B)(2), or, Capacity Requirements ©(3) with labeling?


----------



## Yankee (Jan 7, 2011)

Yes, a condo is a separate parcel just go look at the tax maps or to the registry of deeds. The remaining shared area is also a separate parcel. There are indeed lot lines associated with these parcels even if they run "under the sheetrock".


----------



## Yankee (Jan 7, 2011)

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


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).


----------



## Yankee (Jan 7, 2011)

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 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.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 7, 2011)

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.


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.

Going back to the condo/IBC thing: if they are shown with lot lines at exterior walls as you and brudgers have said (and one of you said you walk out the door and are immediately on another parcel), that may be fine if you have handled such situations administratively, or by amendment, but strictly by code it's prohibited.

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.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 7, 2011)

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.


How do you deal with setbacks from lot lines (for building applications) in the field?


----------



## Yankee (Jan 7, 2011)

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.


Could you get me that section please?


----------



## texasbo (Jan 7, 2011)

Table 704.8, Sec 705.1.1, 2006 IBC.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 7, 2011)

I didn't find it there, because I am looking on-line at the 2009, but I did find what you are referring to, I think. Party walls constructed on lot lines but be constructed as fire walls and cannot have openings only in the case of a property line division. That is interesting and I will have to ruminate on that a bit (and see if I can crack it : ).

So , , back to the issue at hand . .


----------



## texasbo (Jan 7, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> I didn't find it there, because I am looking on-line at the 2009, but I did find what you are referring to, I think. Party walls constructed on lot lines but be constructed as fire walls and cannot have openings only in the case of a property line division. That is interesting and I will have to ruminate on that a bit (and see if I can crack it : ).So , , back to the issue at hand . .


It's all interpretation, and I don't think anyone is right or wrong; I just personally feel the preponderance of code provisions point to not allowing openings at lot lines, but that's just my opinion. And I still say this is an excellent discussion.

And I too am going back to the issue at hand, and that issue for me, is beating the helloutta LSU. Have a good weekend!


----------



## brudgers (Jan 8, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> I didn't find it there, because I am looking on-line at the 2009, but I did find what you are referring to, I think. Party walls constructed on lot lines but be constructed as fire walls and cannot have openings only in the case of a property line division. That is interesting and I will have to ruminate on that a bit (and see if I can crack it : ).So , , back to the issue at hand . .


The wall between dwellings in a two family dwelling is not a party wall because the IRC does not define it as such.


----------



## peach (Jan 8, 2011)

If I can build a 45,000 sq ft house under IRC... which I think I can... where in the IRC is the requirement for fire barriers?


----------



## Yankee (Jan 8, 2011)

I didn't find a definition of party wall at all in the codes (???) so I used the Webster's, and it calls any wall along a property line a party wall?


----------



## peach (Jan 8, 2011)

generally true... so if the houses (by virtue of a covenant) are one house for now..


----------



## brudgers (Jan 8, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> If I can build a 45,000 sq ft house under IRC... which I think I can... where in the IRC is the requirement for fire barriers?


One hour fire resistant construction is required to separate the dwellings in a two family dwelling under the IRC.

BTW, if the door was 60 minute it would maintain the required fire separation.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 8, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> One hour fire resistant construction is required to separate the dwellings in a two family dwelling under the IRC.BTW, if the door was 60 minute it would maintain the required fire separation.


That is what I think exactly.

This property line magically turning the wall into a Fire Wall (2hrs no openings) . . . well . . . looks like that's what it says.

I don't know of a covenant that can effect codes, even zoning ordinances.


----------



## peach (Jan 9, 2011)

a covenant can go with the property or with the ownership...


----------



## Yankee (Jan 9, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> a covenant can go with the property or with the ownership...


A covenant isn't a code and isn't a zoning ordinance, to my knowledge.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 10, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The wall between dwellings in a two family dwelling is not a party wall because the IRC does not define it as such.


The question and answer in this case had nothing to do with IRC. Did you miss the "it happens in the IBC all the time" part?


----------



## texasbo (Jan 10, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> One hour fire resistant construction is required to separate the dwellings in a two family dwelling under the IRC.BTW, if the door was 60 minute it would maintain the required fire separation.


No. The code does not say one hour fire resistant construction. It says a one hour wall and/or floor assembly complying with ASTM E-119 is required. ASTM E-119 is not a fire test for rated doors.

Is a 60 minute door a one hour rated wall assembly?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 10, 2011)

*CHAPTER 3*

*BUILDING PLANNING*

*SECTION R321.1*

*IRC Interpretation No. 41-03*

*2000 Edition*

*Issued: 06-08-04*
​*R321.1 Two-family dwellings. *

Dwelling units in two-family dwellings shall be separated from each other by wall and/or floor
​assemblies of not less than 1-hour fire-resistive rating when tested in accordance with ASTM E 119. Fire-resistance-rated floor-ceiling
​


and wall assemblies shall extend to and be tight against the exterior wall, and wall assemblies shall extend to the underside of the roof

sheathing.


​

*Exception: *
​A fire resistance rating of 1/2 hour shall be permitted in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic
​sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13.
​


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

*Q: *
​Is a two-family dwelling with a property line separating the dwelling units required to comply with the separation
​provisions in Section R321.1?
​

*A: *
​No. The code does not address a property line within an attached two-family dwelling. A dwelling is a building that contains one or two dwelling units. A building line, or property line, is a line established by law, beyond which a building
​

shall not extend. An attached two-family dwelling with a property line between the two dwelling units is considered two separate buildings, located on two separate lots. Two individual dwellings must comply with the fire separation distance required in Section R302.1.
​

 The code sections reference the 2000 edition of the IRC



______________________________________________________________________________________________
​


----------



## Richard (Jan 24, 2011)

In jurisdictions that use the IBC as well as the IRC, this building would be classified as an R-3 Use and even if the IRC is referenced as the applicable code it would be reasonable to say that the IBC requirement for a 2 hour Fire Wall between separate R-3 use group buildings that share a property line still applies.  That requirements says the rating must be at least 2 hours and that there can be no openings.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 24, 2011)

If the code had anything to do about ownership what would we do about condos?


----------



## Yankee (Jan 24, 2011)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> If the code had anything to do about ownership what would we do about condos?


Making the required fire rating between new condo units of any configuration is not a problem. The problem becomes when you tell your P&D department or the applicant that they can't condo-ize an existing property because it would cause a code violation. Or, if it is not a Change of Use requiring compliance with new construction, then it would be ok to condo-ize no matter what the nature of the seperation was. . . . help me out here


----------



## texasbo (Jan 25, 2011)

The code doesn't address ownership, it addresses lot lines. Condos, at least in my part of the country, are owned paint-to-paint, and ownership is established by legal document. There are no platted lot lines between units. So there is no problem "condo-izing", whether it's brand new, or 100 years old ( in fact, it's not uncommon around here for apartments to be condo-ized. If there is a platted lot line, then opening protection is required as prescribed in the IRC or IBC depending on the building type.

Others have described condos that actually have platted lot lines around them so that when you walk out of your front door, you are on a separate lot. Never seen that, and don't no how it can be reconciled by code. It would take special agreements tied to the property and accepted by the city to make it work.

And Rick, I don't necessarilly agree that the code doesn't have "anything" to do with ownership, otherwise it wouldn't have so many provisions respecting property lines and building location on property. Why does it have lesser restrictions for buildings that have multiple tenants that own their spaces, but no lot lines? I can only assume that there is an inference that such buildings (such as condos, malls, etc.), have separate property management to ensure hazards are mitigated between the different tenant owners.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 25, 2011)

I am joyed to see you are finally making a distinction between lot lines and property lines. Even though it means mischaracterizing what I wrote several weeks ago, I am optimistic that we won't have to cover all that ground again.


----------



## Mac (Jan 25, 2011)

The difference (in NY, at least) is that people buy a share in a condominium, which includes hte right to live in a dwelling unit owned by the condo. There are no property lines, and the owner lives in the unit by agreement.

A Homeowners' Association, OTOH, is formed to protect the rights of people who buy a (sometimes attached) dwelling unit, and get a deed, title, and as mentioned, own the unit 'paint to paint'.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 25, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I am joyed to see you are finally making a distinction between lot lines and property lines. Even though it means mischaracterizing what I wrote several weeks ago, I am optimistic that we won't have to cover all that ground again.


I am joyed to see that you are just as ignorant as you were 2+ weeks ago. The fact that the code uses on the term "lot line", doesn't mean there is any difference between the two. They are interchangeable, and if I'm not mistaken, I'm not the first to have to inform you of this.

Those who dwell on semantics or spelling typically do so in place of a good argument.

At least you didn't interrupt the discussion to reference the wrong code this time; annoying nonetheless.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 25, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I am joyed to see that you are just as ignorant as you were 2+ weeks ago. The fact that the code uses on the term "lot line", doesn't mean there is any difference between the two.


Beam:column, roof:ceiling, fire resistant:non-combustible, property line:lot line, what's the difference?

It seems like half the time you're making stuff up, and the other half merely misapplying the code as written.

I'm not surprised you don't value accuracy.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 25, 2011)

I can tell you the difference between a beam and a column. I can tell you the difference between fire resistant and noncombustible.

Please tell us the difference between property line and lot line.

Didn't think so.

Now, please stop typing just to see your words on the screen.

Or, more likely, we'll just continue sidestepping your irrelevant interruptions to continue the worthwhile conversation.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 25, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I can tell you the difference between a beam and a column. I can tell you the difference between fire resistant and noncombustible.


I figured roof:ceiling would prove a bit too difficult.


----------



## texas transplant (Jan 25, 2011)

Come on children, please play nice or take it private.

Thanks


----------



## Yankee (Jan 25, 2011)

I haven't found the answer to my dilemma in these posts. So, it would seem, that some people agree that an apartment house can be built with (for instance) four dwelling units that require 1 hour separation, and the next year they can be turned into condo's on separate parcels that WOULD HAVE required 2 hour separation  when built, and this all makes sense?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 25, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> I haven't found the answer to my dilemma in these posts. So, it would seem, that some people agree that an apartment house can be built with (for instance) four dwelling units that require 1 hour separation, and the next year they can be turned into condo's on separate parcels that WOULD HAVE required 2 hour separation  when built, and this all makes sense?


Why would dwelling units in R2 require two hour separation?


----------



## JBI (Jan 25, 2011)

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.

*Exception:* Openings in a party wall separating an _anchor building_ and a mall shall be in accordance with Section 402.7.3.1.

*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.



*and of course...*

*FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE. *The distance measured from the building face to one of the following: 

*                             1. To the closest interior **lot* *line; **or*

I think I mentioned Party Wall a few pages back... 

If you're going to the IBC for a solution the first provision (Party Wall)  becomes a problem. 

If staying in the IRC the last item (Fire Seperation Distance) does. 

The only way to allow, IMHO, would be to eliminate the *lot* line. 

NYS has much different Administrative provisions than most of the rest of you, so I won't opine on the idea of a waiver or variance. 

The Code may not address ownership, per se, but it certainly recgnizes *lot* lines and Distance Seperations. 

Once the *lot* line is eliminated, it is either a two-family with rated wall or a single family with two kitchens. 

As far as the electrical supply, a service can have more than one meter attached, but a single lot can have only one service (with some limited exceptions).


----------



## Yankee (Jan 26, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Why would dwelling units in R2 require two hour separation?


Because the new lot line would require that a fire wall be between the parcels.


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 26, 2011)

Condo's are all on one lot just like apartments. The only real difference is that condo units are owned individually, typically by the occupant. There are no property lines between individual dwelling spaces and based on OUR interpretation, no need for 2 hour walls separating units.

Townhouses are individual units on individual lots which requires a 2-hour wall between units--at least here it does based on OUR interpretation of the building code.

As for the original desire to put openings between the two units--it is easy to accomplish if you want to. If you do not want to allow it, it is probably just as easy to deny. It all depends on your mindset.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 26, 2011)

I don't think it is an interpretation of the building code that determines if the units are on separate lots, but the manner in which they are subdivided (or not) with regard to local/state planning and subdivision regulations. Here, condo development is by state Statue a subdivision of land requiring that each unit be a separately parcel and registered as such with the State


----------



## texasbo (Jan 26, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Here, condo development is by state Statue a subdivision of land requiring that each unit be a separately parcel and registered as such with the State


That's very unusual and interesting. What state are you in?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 26, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Because the new lot line would require that a fire wall be between the parcels.


"A portion or parcel of *land*..."

Within the building code, use the building code definitions because using those from zoning or subdivision regulations may create confusion.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 26, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> "A portion or parcel of *land*..."Within the building code, use the building code definitions because using those from zoning or subdivision regulations may create confusion.


So what are you saying, I lost the thread of your part of the discussion?


----------

