# Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



## MarkRandall

Section R309.2 says garages less than 3 from a dwelling on the same lot require protection. So If I have a 3 foot total distance from dwelling to garage, there's no gypsum board protection required and I can have windows in either the garage or dwelling or both with no protection? Is that correct?

My code brain is trying to do the imaginary property line thing or look at connecting the two buildings, but if I'm reading this correct the garage can be as close as 3 feet and nothing is required. My client requested building an addition as close to an existing garage as possible. Before checking the code, I thought I might need 6' (3' each structure) with protection, 10' without any protection. I'm just totally surprised and decided to have you guys verify my code review.

R309.2.....Garages located less than 3 feet (914 mm) from a dwelling unit

on the same lot shall be protected with not less than 1/2-inch (12.7

mm) gypsum board applied to the interior side of exterior walls

that are within this area.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				MarkRandall said:
			
		

> Section R309.2 says garages less than 3 from a dwelling on the same lot require protection. So If I have a 3 foot total distance from dwelling to garage, there's no gypsum board protection required and I can have windows in either the garage or dwelling or both with no protection? Is that correct?My code brain is trying to do the imaginary property line thing or look at connecting the two buildings, but if I'm reading this correct the garage can be as close as 3 feet and nothing is required. My client requested building an addition as close to an existing garage as possible. Before checking the code, I thought I might need 6' (3' each structure) with protection, 10' without any protection. I'm just totally surprised and decided to have you guys verify my code review.
> 
> R309.2.....Garages located less than 3 feet (914 mm) from a dwelling unit
> 
> on the same lot shall be protected with not less than 1/2-inch (12.7
> 
> mm) gypsum board applied to the interior side of exterior walls
> 
> that are within this area.


Make it 3'-6" from the other building and be more safe that it is not going to be less then that distance. This would include the roof overhang projection should not be within 3'.

It does not say 3-ft. or less. Which is <=3'

It is < 3'

That mean if it is 3-ft. then you are ok. The same a law says that a building is non-exempt if over 4000 sq.ft. 4,000 sq.ft. is ok. If you don't want construction variability to bite you, make no portion including roof overhang projection (including gutter) to not project within 3'. So put a minimum of 3'-6" at roof overhang. Assume 24" overhang from wall to gutter for the projection for an ordinarily 18" roof overhang projection (not including 6" gutter).  Therefore, you would want your wall to be 5'-6" to 6'-0" from the other building at roof overhang projection.

The portion that is within the projection zone would require that 1 hour type-x gypsum board fire wall rating and may need to meet the full 1hour rating all the way around the point of the wall and roof overhang join together. Even though the wall itself may be outside the 5' rating zone. Any door and door frame that projects into the zone would need to be 1 hour fire-rated assembly and the windows as well if it projects into the zone. However, the entire wall may not have to be 1hour fire rated.

Local conditions may amend this. I remember a 5-ft rule. I felt so lucky.    

There is some variability with this and don't forget the fire marshal whom might require additional requirements and it goes because he is the fire marshal.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Mark,

"there is no gypsum board protection required and I can have windows in either the garage or dwelling or both with no protection? Is that correct?"

Yes, according to the 2006 IRC R309.  The 3' seems to cover it.

Uncle Bob


----------



## MarkRandall

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Uncle Bob,

That's how I see it (I just don't believe it).

I would not interpret measuring from overhang. Any other comments on that?

I'll probably stay 5' back. The area where the two structure meet is only about 30" of wall length, but there is a window in the garage in that 30".


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				MarkRandall said:
			
		

> Uncle Bob,That's how I see it (I just don't believe it).
> 
> I would not interpret measuring from overhang. Any other comments on that?
> 
> I'll probably stay 5' back. The area where the two structure meet is only about 30" of wall length, but there is a window in the garage in that 30".


Is this an attached or detached garage? If attached, then all that fire-rating would not be required even if attached by just a roof. Then the space inbetween is a breezeway and would be governed under another set of code sections.

Some thoughts? IIRC: It would then be one structure not two.

The reason I would start from overhang is there is other codes governing roof overhang fire protection that is within the 3-ft. separation. The whole idea is a complete 3' separation from ground to outer space between the two buildings if you don't want to install 1-hr or higher fire-rated walls and if the buildings comes within that then fire-rating would be required at any of the areas that are projecting within that 3-ft. space.

If the structure makes a complete connection then fire-rating is not required. Unless there is some state/local amendment.

I remember this a few years ago.


----------



## MarkRandall

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

"Is this an attached or detached garage?"

No, I wouldn't reference this code section if it was.

I initially was concerned IRC would require 10' separation (5' each) to do unprotected construction. I was preparing to get creative by thinking about attaching the two structures, but then I did the code research and came across the 3' requirement.

Actually, the more I think about it, it is not all that surprising. If attached the only requirement is gypsum boar on the garage side. 3' separation provides more protection than that.


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Shouldn't R302.1 and Table302.1 be considered also?


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				MarkRandall said:
			
		

> "Is this an attached or detached garage?"No, I wouldn't reference this code section if it was.
> 
> I initially was concerned IRC would require 10' separation (5' each) to do unprotected construction. I was preparing to get creative by thinking about attaching the two structures, but then I did the code research and came across the 3' requirement.
> 
> Actually, the more I think about it, it is not all that surprising. If attached the only requirement is gypsum boar on the garage side. 3' separation provides more protection than that.


Technically, if it is attached then fire-rating is no more required then the rest of the house and whatever gap would be a covered breezeway but the structure would be an addition versus a separate building. The 5-ft rule is in regards to two buildings within 5-ft. requires fire-rated walls. They are separate buildings if they are completely detached.

If attached, then the garage would just need to meet R309. It wouldn't need to be fire-rated level. If detached, it would depend on distance apart. You would need to look at Table R302.1 & R302.1.

Only 5-ft. separation for unprotected construction of two separate buildings.

EDIT: To remove "ORSC talk" for plain IRC 2006.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Mark,

I may have missed something by consentrating on R309.2;

Look at R302.1 and Table R302.1

According to the Table; the "(not fire-resistance rated)" requires 5' separation for both the wall and projections.

   Plan Approver be me to it.

Sorry,

Uncle Bob


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Mark,I may have missed something by consentrating on R309.2;
> 
> Look at R302.1 and Table R302.1
> 
> According to the Table; the "(not fire-resistance rated)" requires 5' separation for both the wall and projections.
> 
> Plan Approver be me to it.
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> Uncle Bob


Depending on the code books in use.... In Oregon, it is 3' except for local amendments or Fire Marshal ruling. WA, I believe is plain IRC 2006 so it is 5-ft. unless amended.

If any projection is within the 5-ft zone then then those portions needs to be fire-rated. If roof projects within the 5-ft. the entire roof projection from wall to end of projection within the 5-ft separation distance would need to be fire-rated. Fire Marshal can be anal and have to entire roof projection on that wall face of the garage to be fire-rated.

Depending on how close the projection and wall is, I might tie the roof to the rest of the house even if it is 30" but I would obviously need to be sure the structure and tie is strongly tied together to resist seismic.

One of two things, the entire garage including roof projection is 5-ft or more from the house or I tie the roof system of the garage and house together if I don't want to have to meet that 1-hr. fire rating. Otherwise, bite the bullet and make it fire-rated.


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Making a correction - be back soon. - See further on. Mod - delete this post if you want/can.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

I see the 309.2 "3-ft." rule. If it was attached then that would apply unless you have something like a 3-ft.+ breezeway under the tied roof between the house and the garage portion.

That could be interesting for input.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> Making a correction - be back soon.


Unless completely attached which changes the rules a bit.


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

R302.1 doesn't "jive" w/ R309.2.

Table R302.1 assumes that the overhang is 12" max. as stated in R302.1 for a 5' FSD. If your overhang is greater than 12" on either structure then the separation distance to maintain a nonfire-resistance rating on the overhang must be increased.

R309.2 only applies to walls less than 3' - what about walls over 3' away. That is where - IMHO - R302.1 - takes over. Then as in your original post you lay down an imaginary line between the 2 structures and find the location that works best for you or ask your local AHJ.

R302 seems to get changed every code cycle - 2003 it was call "Location on Lot" - 2006 "Exterior Wall Location" - 2009 "Fire-Resistant Construction". The wording to 2006 R309.2 disappears in 2009.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Dan,

Changng every cycle; you gotta love the ICC.   

I think that is why a lot a AHJs stay with a code adoption for 9 years and more; when they can.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

"Changng every cycle; you gotta love the ICC.     "

I wish we could keep a code for a period longer than 3 years. From 1966 (I was alive, but not not of code age) to 1992 we used what was called the "Regional Dwelling Code" about 150 pages and the BO was the otherwise unemployable bother-in-law of the mayor. From 1992 on it was either the CABO or ICC code every 3 years until the state imposed a statewide residential building code. Local ammendments only by permission of the state and then incorporated statewide.  That caused a great increase in the size of local zoning codes which now means former building code regulations are enforced by the zoning appeals board. We will be getting 2009 IRC in 2011 originally scheduled for 2010.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Dan,Changng every cycle; you gotta love the ICC.
> 
> I think that is why a lot a AHJs stay with a code adoption for 9 years and more; when they can.
> 
> Uncle Bob


Yeah and then throw in local/state amendments....... then you feel like     :?

Look at Oregon.... they even rename the code as well as amend it and then the local jurisdictions may amend it through local ordinances. Got to love it.


----------



## MarkRandall

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Maybe I'm misreading the code (that's why I posted).

R302.1 and Table R302.1 is exactly where I started my code research and I understand that section. Later, though, in section R309.2 is lists a more specific condition of separation between a dwelling and a garage on the same property. That condition is not referenced in 302, so wouldn't 309.2 take precedence over any of the other conditions that I now assume refer to property line separation, not separation between a dwelling and a garage on the same property. If 309.2 doesn't apply, what exactly is it saying then.

I didn't know 309.2 even existed until today (haven't done much residential since I-codes came out). I'm trying to understand intent and if you take all those sections together, 309.2 would not make any sense unless you interpret it superceding the info in 302.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

*R102.4 Referenced codes and standards.* The codes and

standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the

requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such

reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this

code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this

code shall apply.

*Exception:* Where enforcement of a code provision would

violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or

appliance, the conditions of the listing and manufacturer's

instructions shall apply.

The code with the stricter / higher requirement wins.

IIRC: 1-hour fire rated wall would be required on BOTH sides of the wall and 1-hr fire rated gypsum board is 5/8" Type X Gypsum board. 309.2 primary would apply most likely if the garage was attached and is within 3-ft. of the house. Unless it impacts walls perpendicular to the fire separation line. That is about my guess of its applicability.

It (309.2)would not really apply much if the garage was attached with a common roof with a minimum of 3-ft. Breezeway inbetween the garage exterior wall faces and the house.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Mark,

In the 2006 IRC; R309 only address attached garages and detached garages (R309.2), "less than" 3' from the residence, (and is more restrictive).

It does not address detached garages 3' or more from the residence.

The requirement for detached garages "less than" 3'; in R309.2, was added to the 2006 IRC (as indicated by the solid black line on the side); and according to Dan, was removed in the 2009 IRC; probably because of the confusion it caused.

(It evidently "leaves the impression" that detached garages 3' and more do not require separation protection; and that's why it was taken back out of that section.)

I agree with Dan; R302 applies to all detached garages 3' and more from the residence "in the 2006 IRC".

Hope this helps,

Uncle Bob


----------



## MarkRandall

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Thanks All for all the input.

The whole purpose of this discussion was to try and make sense of R309.2 as it didn't make sense to me. I guess since they are pulling that verbage out of the 2009 version, it was not making sense to a lot of people. I may look at attaching the two structures as that will allow the requested addition size with the least requirements.


----------



## brudgers

Warning Rant

In their infinite wisdom, ICC changed around all the building planning requirements related to lot line proximity in 2006.

Previously, fire separation was measured between buildings which allowed traditional zero lot line type development.

But despite any significant evidence that such development poses a hazard, IRC 2006 changed to fire separation based on distance from lot lines.

It was change for the sake of change.

I'm not surprised that 2009 has to clean up the mess.

--end rant


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

R309.2 is less restrictive and should be considered an exception to R302.1 & Table R302.1.

At 3' or less R309.2 allows 1/2" gyp. on the interior of the exterior walls and permits a solid door or etc. Whereas, at less than 5 feet, Table R302.1 requires 1 hour from both sides on both walls, none or some (25%) openings, and 1 hour overhangs.

The way I see your situation is that you will need 10' between the detached garage and the proposed addition in order to have unprotected walls, overhangs and openings. If the overhangs are over 2' then the overhangs would need 1 hour.

Again, your local AHJ may see it differently.


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



> In their infinite wisdom, ICC changed around all the building planning requirements related to lot line proximity in 2006.Previously, fire separation was measured between buildings which allowed traditional zero lot line type development.
> 
> But despite any significant evidence that such development poses a hazard, IRC 2006 changed to fire separation based on distance from lot lines.
> 
> It was change for the sake of change.
> 
> I'm not surprised that 2009 has to clean up the mess.


It is popular for many to say ICC stands for International Cash Cow.  I prefer that ICC stands for International Code Camel as in "A camel looks like a horse that was planned by a committee."  Can't wait for the changes in the Green Building Code and future cap and trade changes.  The camel will look sane, logical, well thought out.

 -- end rant 2.0


----------



## JBI

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

The camel is the preferred mode of transportation in the desert for many good reasons, none of which include anything to do with building construction...

RickA - "...and 1-hr fire rated gypsum board is 5/8" Type X Gypsum board..." In what reality?

There are many listed 1 hr assemblies that use 1/2" plain GWB.

Individual components are not generally assigned a fire-rating, and 5/8" GWB in and of itself does not carry a 1 hour rating.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> The camel is the preferred mode of transportation in the desert for many good reasons, none of which include anything to do with building construction...RickA - "...and 1-hr fire rated gypsum board is 5/8" Type X Gypsum board..." In what reality?
> 
> There are many listed 1 hr assemblies that use 1/2" plain GWB.
> 
> Individual components are not generally assigned a fire-rating, and 5/8" GWB in and of itself does not carry a 1 hour rating.


Cows have the same number of legs as a camel and can legally provide transportation in exempt deserts.  The code doesn't require a desert to be dry and a cow is a trasportation professional.


----------



## JBI

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

brudgers - Was that _humor_?  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## brudgers

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Sarcasm.


----------



## JBI

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Close enough!


----------



## brudgers

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Close enough!


For government work.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Mark,In the 2006 IRC; R309 only address attached garages and detached garages (R309.2), "less than" 3' from the residence, (and is more restrictive).
> 
> It does not address detached garages 3' or more from the residence.
> 
> The requirement for detached garages "less than" 3'; in R309.2, was added to the 2006 IRC (as indicated by the solid black line on the side); and according to Dan, was removed in the 2009 IRC; probably because of the confusion it caused.
> 
> (It evidently "leaves the impression" that detached garages 3' and more do not require separation protection; and that's why it was taken back out of that section.)
> 
> I agree with Dan; R302 applies to all detached garages 3' and more from the residence "in the 2006 IRC".
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Uncle Bob


R302 requires 1 hour fire-rated walls and that is 5/8" Type X gypsum board on both sides of walls parallel with the fire-separation line (which is 5-ft from the house) if IIRC.

R309.2 requires 1/2" on the inside portion of interior walls within 3-ft.

Maybe for example, if the garage wall is 1-ft from the house. That it would require 5/8" Type-X on walls parallel to the fire separation line and 1/2" for all other interior walls of the garage within 3'. So, in technical regards, for walls within 5-ft from house parallel with fire separation line shall have 5/8" protection on BOTH sides. While walls non-parallel to fire separation line within 3-ft of the other building or rest of the house shall be a minimum of 1/2". Other walls maybe 3/8" or 1/4". Anyway, R309.2 seems to be somewhat moot. It maybe stricter in portions but the truth of the matter, both R302 and R390.2 shall be complied. Fire-rated wall protection on walls parallel to the fire separation line within 5-ft. shall be 5/8" Type X Gypsum board on BOTH sides (If I remember that correctly (on exterior - minimum of 1 hr. fire rated brick can be used in lieu of gypsum board). Other walls within 3-ft. shall be a minimum of 1/2". That would be my interpretation of it.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> The camel is the preferred mode of transportation in the desert for many good reasons, none of which include anything to do with building construction...RickA - "...and 1-hr fire rated gypsum board is 5/8" Type X Gypsum board..." In what reality?
> 
> There are many listed 1 hr assemblies that use 1/2" plain GWB.
> 
> Individual components are not generally assigned a fire-rating, and 5/8" GWB in and of itself does not carry a 1 hour rating.


Ok, if it has the assembly approval and approved by B.O. as an alternative then ok. The code specifies 5/8" that meets 1 hour fire rating. I'm pointing from code but yes alternative products that meets that 1 hr rating can also be used. Call it alternative method/product as approved by B.O.


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

_"The code specifies 5/8" that meets 1 hour fire rating."_

Hey Rick,

Where? Is that at your local or state level? I couldn't find it in the 06 IRC. Are you stating exceptions, trade-offs, or membranes  in lieu of assemblies?


----------



## JBI

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Nah. He's just misapplying the allowance for 5/8" type x garage side only for attached garages.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Practically speaking 5/8" type X will provide one hour of fire protection when used in a vertical assembly such as a wall  or column wrap.

That's why you can get a 1 hour rated wall with 2 1/2" metal studs despite the thermal bridging.

The wood framed calculated assemblies in the code include horizontal applications as well.

That's why it's per layer value is only 40 minutes.

Of course, none of this is a substitution for code requirements or listed assemblies.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Nah. He's just misapplying the allowance for 5/8" type x garage side only for attached garages.


If attached then fire-rating not required. If detached then it must be on both sides. I'll double check what I wrote if I was typing too slow for my thinking and got erroneous.

R302 pertains to detached garages not attached. R309 can apply to attached and detached garages. Code default for 1-hour fire rated wall is 5/8" Type X gypsum board. Of course rated assemblies may be used in lieu of the gypsum board.

Since 5/8" is thicker and therefore more strict then 1/2" - it would apply for all walls parallel to the fire separation line and is within 5-ft. For any other wall within 3-ft of the main residence  on a detached garage would need to be 1/2" for any portions within 3-ft.

Regarding attached garages, the any wall within 3-ft of the rest of the house would need a minimum of 1/2". On detached garages, R309.2 would apply also to walls perpendicular to the fire separation line. That is how I would interpret it as minimum but walls parallel to fire separation line would be 5/8" Type X GWB within 5-ft. or equivalent or higher rated assembly.

I would expect 5/8" Type x GWB (or equivalent or higher rated wall assembly) on walls parallel to house walls within 5-ft. on detached garages and 1/2" on other walls for portions within 3-ft. of house on a detached garage. That would be my interpretation if I was a code inspector.

If i see 1/2" instead of 5/8" then I want to see the rating and will check if assembly was installed according to manf. specs.


----------



## georgia plans exam

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Here is how I see it.

Section R309.2 has specific requirements for a detached garage wall which is less than 3’ from the house. If it is more than 3’ from the house, no protection is required. The imaginary line between two buildings on the same lot is from the IBC and is not a part of the IRC.

If, however, the back or side wall is within 5’ of the property line, Section 302.1 and Table 302.1 would apply to that wall.

GPE


----------



## EPrice

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				georgia plans exam said:
			
		

> ...The imaginary line between two buildings on the same lot is from the IBC and is not a part of the IRC...


The imaginary line language can be found in the IRC in the definition of "Fire Separation Distance"


----------



## EPrice

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

After listening to both sides of the discussion, my opinion is that in the case of detached garages, R309 trumps R302.  R302 is a general requirement, while R309 is a specific requirement intended for garages and carports.  To interpret it otherwise leads to  scenarios that do not make sense.  If we say that R302 applies to garages that are more than 3' from the house, then for garages  that are 0' to 3' from the house, the only requirement is for 1/2" gypsum on the inside face of the garage wall, but if the garage is 3'-1" away from the house then one or both of the walls is required to have a layer of 5/8" gypsum on each face, depending on where the imaginary line is drawn.  How does that make sense?


----------



## georgia plans exam

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Good point. I missed that.

Still, I believe that the specific requirements of Section R309.2 trump the requirements of 302.1.

GPE


----------



## fw.

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Section 302 has nothing to do with Section 309.  302 has to do with lot lines, 309 is about garages on the same lot.  If the garage was placed less than 3 feet away from the dwelling the window couldn't be there, at 3 feet no problem.  Section 309 is silent about projections, but it only requires the sheetrock on the interior of the wall.  It doesn't say that if closer than 3 feet you need to do more.  The code is a minimum, don't overthink it.  If it was my home I might do something different, but I enforce the code.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				georgia plans exam said:
			
		

> Here is how I see it.Section R309.2 has specific requirements for a detached garage wall which is less than 3’ from the house. If it is more than 3’ from the house, no protection is required. The imaginary line between two buildings on the same lot is from the IBC and is not a part of the IRC.
> 
> If, however, the back or side wall is within 5’ of the property line, Section 302.1 and Table 302.1 would apply to that wall.
> 
> GPE


See definition of fire separation distance below to see it is also in IRC, not just IBC.

My take is that 302.1 is used for exterior walls of dwelling units and accessory buildings, including the fire separation distance between a detached garage and another building on the same lot or an adjacent lot.  However, 309.2 applies to the protection required for a detached garage on the same lot as the associated dwelling unit.  309.2 modifies 302.1 for a detached garage only on the same lot as the dwelling unit.

I'd rather see that "exception" in 309.2 moved to 302.1 as an exception, with a pointer sentence in 309.2 to reference 302.1.

*2006 IRC definition:*

*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.*

*The distance shall be measured at a right angle from the face of the wall.*


----------



## JBI

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

IRC 2006

*SECTION R302 EXTERIOR WALL LOCATION*

R302.1 Exterior walls.

Construction, projections, openings and penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessory buildings shall comply with Table R302.1. These provisions shall not apply to walls, projections, openings or penetrations in walls that are perpendicular to the line used to determine the fire separation distance. Projections beyond the exterior wall shall not extend more than 12 inches (305 mm) into the areas where openings are prohibited.

Exceptions:

1.   Detached tool sheds and storage sheds, playhouses and similar structures exempted from permits are not required to provide wall protection based on location on the lot. Projections beyond the exterior wall shall not extend over the lot line.

2.   Detached garages accessory to a dwelling located within 2 feet (610 mm) of a lot line are permitted to have roof eave projections not exceeding 4 inches (102 mm).

3.   Foundation vents installed in compliance with this code are permitted.

*SECTION R309 GARAGES AND CARPORTS*

R309.2 Separation required.

The garage shall be separated from the residence and its attic area by not less than ½-inch (12.7 mm) gypsum board applied to the garage side. Garages beneath habitable rooms shall be separated from all habitable rooms above by not less than 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board or equivalent. Where the separation is a floor-ceiling assembly, the structure supporting the separation shall also be protected by not less than 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) gypsum board or equivalent. Garages located less than 3 feet (914 mm) from a dwelling unit on the same lot shall be protected with not less than ½-inch (12.7 mm) gypsum board applied to the interior side of exterior walls that are within this area. Openings in these walls shall be regulated by Section R309.1. This provision does not apply to garage walls that are perpendicular to the adjacent dwelling unit wall.

I'm not sure I understand the confusion.

And for the record, unless I am missing something, the only place 5/8" Type X gypsum board is _required_ is ceilings of garages with habitable space above with no reference to hourly rating of assemblies... :roll:


----------



## FredK

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Can't believe this is 5 pages    .  JD's post is right on the mark.

More things to worry about than 3'0" inches and less than 3'0"difference.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

John,

Thanks for straightening that out, I see I was more part of the problem than the solution.   

Uncle Bob


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				fw. said:
			
		

> Section 302 has nothing to do with Section 309.  302 has to do with lot lines, 309 is about garages on the same lot.  If the garage was placed less than 3 feet away from the dwelling the window couldn't be there, at 3 feet no problem.  Section 309 is silent about projections, but it only requires the sheetrock on the interior of the wall.  It doesn't say that if closer than 3 feet you need to do more.  The code is a minimum, don't overthink it.  If it was my home I might do something different, but I enforce the code.


R302 has has nothing to do with lot line but can apply when there is a lot line issue but then zoning setbacks comes into the game. R302 has to do with two separate buildings within X number of feet from each other.

R309 makes provisions that addresses walls perpendicular to the fire separation line. The line being discussed is about the fire separation NOT lot separation.

So if you read it 302 applies to walls of buildings being constructed and work being done on existing buildings where the walls of two buildings are within 5-ft. Crossing the 5-ft. fire separation line which is the distance unprotected walls of two separate buildings can be to each other. Otherwise 1-hour fire protection must be achieved on walls that are not perpendicular or substantially parallel. Walls that are near perpendicular may be treated as perpendicular. Walls that are substantially parallel would be treated parallel. That is my interpretation.

This applies to walls NOT perpendicular (or substantially) to fire separation line.

309 applies to all interior walls of garages within 3-ft. of another building (or main residence) regardless of whether it is attached or detached.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> fw. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 302 has nothing to do with Section 309.  302 has to do with lot lines, 309 is about garages on the same lot.  If the garage was placed less than 3 feet away from the dwelling the window couldn't be there, at 3 feet no problem.  Section 309 is silent about projections, but it only requires the sheetrock on the interior of the wall.  It doesn't say that if closer than 3 feet you need to do more.  The code is a minimum, don't overthink it.  If it was my home I might do something different, but I enforce the code.
Click to expand...




			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> R302 has has nothing to do with lot line but can apply when there is a lot line issue but then zoning setbacks comes into the game. R302 has to do with two separate buildings within X number of feet from each other.


Incorrect.  Please reread the definition of fire separation distance, then reread 302.  Lot lines is in there.



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> R309 makes provisions that addresses walls perpendicular to the fire separation line. The line being discussed is about the fire separation NOT lot separation. So if you read it 302 applies to walls of buildings being constructed and work being done on existing buildings where the walls of two buildings are within 5-ft. Crossing the 5-ft. fire separation line which is the distance unprotected walls of two separate buildings can be to each other. Otherwise 1-hour fire protection must be achieved on walls that are not perpendicular or substantially parallel. Walls that are near perpendicular may be treated as perpendicular. Walls that are substantially parallel would be treated parallel. That is my interpretation.
> 
> This applies to walls NOT perpendicular (or substantially) to fire separation line.


Not sure where you are coming up with some of this...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpendicular

1 a : standing at right angles to the plane of the horizon : exactly upright b : being at right angles to a given line or plane

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20angle

: the angle bounded by two lines perpendicular to each other : an angle of 90° or 1?2 ? radians



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> 309 applies to all interior walls of garages within 3-ft. of another building (or main residence) regardless of whether it is attached or detached.


The garage has to be on the same lot as the dwelling unit and the garage has to serve that dwelling unit to use 309.

If you had a townhouse project, would you not reference 302 regarding rated walls between adjacent garages serving different units whether a lot line is involved or not?


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

This thread is suffering from length.  So for my last say on it. I decided to post the commentary for 302.1 and 309.2. You can make your own decision on what you want to enforce in your jurisdiction. Since you may be able to make your own interpretations, just make a decision that your feel comfortable with and that will keep your residents safe. Make that decision available to any one wishing to build, add, remodel, etc. so that everyone is reading from the same script.



> *From the IRC Commentary for 302.1*  This section provides details for issues related to building location on the property, including the fire rating of exterior walls, permitted openings and projections. Table R302.1 is a tabular overview of the requirements of this section.
> 
> Concerning exterior wall protection, the IRC assumes that an owner has no control over an adjoining property. Thus, the location of buildings on the owner's property relative to the property line requires regulation. In addition, Section R309, which lists the separation requirements for garages and carports, specifically requires garages located less than 3 feet (914 mm) from a dwelling unit on the same lot to have not less than 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) gypsum board applied to the interior side of the walls. Opening protection for these walls is regulated by Section R309.1.
> 
> The property line concept is a convenient means of protecting one building from another as far as exposure is concerned. Exposure is the potential for heat to be transmitted from one building to another during a fire in the exposing building. Radiation is the primary means of heat transfer.
> 
> Walls less than 5 feet (1525 mm) from the property line must be of 1-hour fire-resistant construction. The fire-resistance rating also requires the rating exposure to be for both sides. Specific provisions are not found in the IRC for the fire-resistance ratings of walls or other elements, so one may use either the IBC or another manual of fire-resistant assemblies. Projections may not be closer than 4 feet (1219 mm) to the lot line. Projections should not extend more than 12 inches (305 mm) into an area where walls are required to be of 1-hour fire-resistant construction must be protected on the underside with 1-hour fire-resistant construction [see Commentary Figure R302.1(1)].
> 
> Unlike the IBC, the IRC does not set a distance from the property line at which openings must be protected. Openings are not permitted in exterior walls where the exterior wall has a fire-separation distance of less than 3 feet (914 mm) from the lot line. Openings in a wall located at a distance in excess of 3 feet (914 mm) from the lot line can not exceed 25 percent of the maximum wall area (see Commentary Figures R302.1(2) and (3)]. Openings, projections or penetrations that are 90 degrees (1.57 rad) (perpendicular) to the line used to determine fire separation distance are not prohibited. Section R317.3 describes through penetrations and membrane penetrations in detail.
> 
> See the definition of Fire Separation Distance in Chapter 2. The requirements for protection do not apply to walls that are at a right angle (perpendicular to) the property line (see Commentary Figures R302.1(2) and (3)].





> *From the IRC Commentary for 309.2*    Numerous potential hazards exist within garages because occupants of dwelling units tend to store a variety of hazardous materials there. Along with this and the potential for carbon monoxide build-up within the garage, the IRC requires that the garage be separated from the dwelling unit and the attic with at least 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) gypsum board or other equivalent material. If a habitable room is above the garage, the separation must be at least 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board or equivalent. In addition, garages located less than 3 feet (305 mm) from an adjacent structure must be protected with at least 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) gypsum board applied to the interior side of the garage. See Section R302. The close proximity to adjacent structures requires the additional protection.
> 
> There are two primary reasons for the enhanced fire endurance of a garage ceiling located beneath a habitable room. First, a fire occurring in a garage may well go undetected for an extended period prior to activation of a detector or other visual alerting. Second, the inherent fire load and hazardous household activities associated with a garage necessitate this additional level of protection if fire suppression forces are to have a reasonable opportunity to contain a garage fire to the area of origin. The single layer of 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum at the garage ceiling increases the fire endurance of the assembly considerably, from 15 minutes for a 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) layer, to at least 40 minutes, or a 167 percent increase in endurance. When added to the rating for floor joists and certain subflooring combinations, the final endurance is close to 1 hour.
> 
> Additionally, the exterior walls of the garage are required to have 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) gypsum board on the interior face where they support floors separating all or part of a dwelling unit above the garage. Commentary Figure R309.2 shows two locations of gypsum wallboard; each achieves the protection required by the code.


Over and out.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309Plan Approver and TJacobs, 2008 Oregon Residential Specialty Code--------------------------------------------------------------*R302.1 Exterior walls.* Construction, projections, openingsand penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessorybuildings shall comply with Table R302.1. These provisionsshall not apply to walls, projections, openings or penetrationsin walls that are perpendicular to the line used to determine thefire separation distance. Projections beyond the exterior wallshall not extend more than 12 inches (305 mm) into the areaswhere openings are prohibited.Exceptions:1. Detached tool sheds and storage sheds, playhousesand similar structures exempted from permits are notrequired to provide wall protection based on locationon the lot. Projections beyond the exterior wall shallnot extend over the lot line._2. Detached garages accessory to a dwelling locatedwithin 2 feet (610 mm) of a __lot line__ are permitted tohave roof eave projections not exceeding 4 inches002 mm)._3. Foundation vents installed in compliance with thiscode are permitted.Table 302.1.JPG[/attachment:qkytxh76]----------------------------------------------------The only thing that mentions lot line is in Exception #2. Detached Garages are ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.This pertains to fire separation construction between a dwelling and an accessory building.TJacobs, when I say substantially parallel and substantially perpendicular.Take a wall on a garage that is diagonal from the dwelling. Lets say it is 10 degrees +/- from being true parallel, I would still treat it as if it was parallel for all portions of the wall within 5-ft. If the wall was say only 10 degrees +/- from perpendicular then I would treat it as perpendicular. The 45 degree mark will be a tricky one. I know the dictionary definition but I am looking at fire conditions and know enough about fire that a wall that is only slightly off from parallel will need the same level of protection as if it was true parallel. Heck, in construction, it will likely not be absolutely true parallel anyway. Its rough framing anyway. So, anyway, it is a judgment call anyway.I had to meet R302.1 as defined above with a garage/accessory workshop on the same lot with the house even though there was a 4-ft. space in between the walls of the dwelling and the accessory building.We treat accessory buildings on the same lot much the same way as if there was a lot line.At the time, I was working with IRC 2006 - 5 ft. rule before 2008 ORSC was adopted with amendments. Taking the stricter of IRC (5-ft.) and the stricter requirements of the 2004/2005 ORSC edition. Fire marshal would want 5-ft. anyway being fire rated. The ones in our area can be an _________. I was aiming to spec 3/4" Type X on both side. Interior and exterior grade. I remember having some questions about that. Some thoughts I had was making that wall portion be some sort of brick faces or CMU / Concrete brick or something of that sort. I would typically build the wall with brick facing and possibly some type of ICF or concrete back wall and 5/8" Type-X on the inside. This would have made construction interesting. It was an interesting thought. I also looked to the fire code as well.

View attachment 52


View attachment 52


/monthly_2010_05/572953b4f05c0_Table302.1.JPG.d8f429ea1dbb9ea6fa13e1bb7f5319fc.JPG


----------



## brudgers

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> Over and out.


I read the commentary and it's pure rationalization.

The ICC imagines that fires start in garages, so they come up with rules, and then come up with reasons after the fact.

The statistics don't bear out the rule.

Look at page 28 here:  http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/p ... _Fires.pdf

Only 4.5% of dwelling fire injuries originate in the garage!

If you want to keep fire from spreading, fire rate bedrooms and kitchens.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Plans Approver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over and out.
Click to expand...

I read the commentary and it's pure rationalization.

The ICC imagines that fires start in garages, so they come up with rules, and then come up with reasons after the fact.

The statistics don't bear out the rule.

Look at page 28 here:  http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/p ... _Fires.pdf

Only 4.5% of dwelling fire injuries originate in the garage!

If you want to keep fire from spreading, fire rate bedrooms and kitchens.

That is what the FIRE CODE is for.    

 :lol: Then whatever the FIRE CODE OFFICIAL says regarding fire safety goes, basically. The B.O. won't argue it.

In addition to the minimums of code, as a design professional (registered or non-registered), we have a professional standard of care and that can be higher then the minimums of code. If you get to understand your client's life style, then we could specify on the plans for higher fire-rating in the mentioned areas, which is legally binding to contractors to follow accordingly (if they want their checks) or approved alternatives.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> In addition to the minimums of code, as a design professional (registered or non-registered)


No such thing.

Do what it takes to get a license.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> RickAstoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to the minimums of code, as a design professional (registered or non-registered)
Click to expand...

No such thing.

Do what it takes to get a license.

Design professional with dictionary definition is a professional of design. So it can mean anyone including a professional artist.

Building code definition of "DESIGN PROFESSIONAL" is ONLY applicable for the meaning of Design Professional of Responsible Charge as used  in the Section title header in R106.3.4.1 (and 106.3.4.1 in the OSSC). Nowhere else in the 2008 ORSC uses "Design Professional". They used "Registered Design Professional". I did a text search in the code on the PDF copy I have that has working text searching. So, with that said, design professional means a professional of design anywhere other then R106.3.4.1 (2008 ORSC) or 106.3.4.1 (2007 OSSC) when it is not a code text citation.

BTW: Building Designers are building design professionals as well as architects, interior designers, engineers, interior architects. You are an RDP (Registered Design Professional). Courts have already ruled building designers as design professionals and has ruled that professional standard of care applies to them as they meet any other design professional.

It is well established that design is not limited to architects and it is long established in legal definition and case rulings that the meaning of professional is not limited to licensed professional. Courts have long taken standard definitions to apply in court decisions.

You seriously think that the folks who design the buildings shown are not professional?

http://aibd.org/

Lets not tangent on design professionals. With all that is said, I am still planning to get licensure. Economy doesn't make it easy to get hired and begin IDP process. You should be aware of that brudgers.


----------



## kilitact

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Chapter 2 in the ORSC

Try to remember the IRC code definition for *design professional *is one who is a *Registered Design Professional.*

A *non-professional designer*, such as *yourself*, is not registered.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Chapter 2 in the ORSCTry to remember the IRC code definition for *design professional *is one who is a *Registered Design Professional.*
> 
> A *non-professional designer*, such as *yourself*, is not registered.


Remember IRC doesn't have a definition for 'non-professional designer' and IRC nor ICC dictates industry terminology. Remember ICC definitions are meant purely to clarify the meaning of words used in the code as applied in code. It has no bearing outside the code.

Oregon never even thought about the word Design Professional and all that it is used for is a subject header for a section. There are more authoritive sources of definition of "Design Professional" which can clearly include Web Design Professionals. ICC was frankly lazy and BCD was even more lazy. Noone in the Oregon's BCD or even ICC would consider design professionals to only be registered design professionals as if only registered designers are design professionals. Since code definitions are not meant to be applied outside of the building codes and the context in which it is used in the codes - it would be pure assinine (asinine) to assume that they aren't design professionals. You think that I am going to rely on IRCs definition of every definition of words?

*R106.3.4 Design professional in responsible charge.*

*R106.3.4.1 General.* When it is required that documents

be prepared by a registered design professional, the

building official shall be authorized to require the owner

to engage and designate on the building permit application

a registered design professional who shall act as the

registered design professional in responsible charge. If

the circumstances require, the owner shall designate a

substitute registered design professional in responsible

charge who shall perform the duties required of the original

registered design professional in responsible charge.

The building official shall be notified in writing by the

owner if the registered design professional in responsible

charge is changed or is unable to continue to perform the

duties.

The registered design professional in responsible

charge shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating

submittal documents prepared by others, including

phased and deferred submittal items, for compatibility

with the design of the building.

now read --> R201

*SECTION R201*

*GENERAL*

*R201.1 Scope. * Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following

words and terms shall, for the purposes of this code, have

the meanings indicated in this chapter.

For the purposes of this code - means for the intent and meaning of the words used in the residential code, the words shall have the meanings indicated in this chapter (Chapter 2) unless otherwise stated.

Read back up at R106.3.4 (the ONLY time *Design Professional* is used and read on to R106.3.4.1 - you'll realize that they are meaning Registered Design Professionals. They decided not to think any further of it. They didn't want to give a separate Definition for Design Professional as R106.3.4.1 doesn't really talk about unlicensed design professionals as R106.3.4.1 is purely about a requirement for when a document is required to be prepared by a Registered Design Professional, the B.O. is authorized to require the Owner to designate who the RDP is - on the building permit and if there is a change in the RDP, the owner shall notify the B.O. and the RDP in responsible charge is responsible for coordinating and reviewing submittal documents for compatibility with design of building.

That is all *Design Professional* is used in the code. Everywhere else is *Registered Design Professional*.

You are kind of expected to have a vocabulary larger then the I-codes' dictionary (the definitions listed in the code) and that terms like truss drawings, design professionals, chimneys, and nearly every word in the code has many more definitions and that there are many more words used in this professional. ICC is not the ONLY dictionary. R106.3.4.1 doesn't list anything special requirements for unlicensed design professionals.

I use more then the building codes for a dictionary. Alot more sources accepts building designers such as myself as a design professional then one single organization. Even AIA and the architect & engineering boards approves / accepts building designers as design professionals. We just aren't REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONALS. Do you want to go over court before the State Attorney General and US Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - over the term design professional when used outside the context of R106.3.4 / R106.3.4.1 of the residential code.

I accept the meaning of the term as it is used in the code because there is NO other use of that term in the code. NO, commentaries are not code.

Enough Kilitact. I know what is says and the limits of the code definitions. You're using the code definition outside of scope of Chapter 2 applicability. You are applying it to a forum message not a code text interpretation.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

The cow is crossing the desert.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> The cow is crossing the desert.


brudgers, yeah. Hope Kilitact can follow the cow along with the vultures.


----------



## kilitact

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Design Professional=Registered Design Professional

Register Design Professional=Design Professional

Read the code when talking code.


----------



## cboboggs

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Here we go again. Rick, Killitact take this argument somewhere else. We have rehashed this over and over again on two different forums enough is enough already. Just agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## kilitact

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

cboboggs, you must've not read any of the other(s) post


----------



## High Desert

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

kil & rick: since we're all from Oregon, why don't we schedule a face to face debate on the subject. I can moderate the debate, and no, it will not occur in the octagon ring (MMA).


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Design Professional=Registered Design ProfessionalRegister Design Professional=Design Professional
> 
> Read the code when talking code.


Kil, are we asking what R106.3.4 means?

NO!

Design Professional is not a code only terminology. It is used in the industry as a shorten form of building design professional which is any person or firm that offers and performs architectural, building design, interior design, and engineering services for remuneration who complies with common and widely accepted definitions of a professional.

I am not required to have architect or engineering services when performing building design services. The services requires technical knowledge in order to competently design houses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

How to Become a Building Designer

Required Education for a Career in Building Design

Most building designers have completed some type of formal education. All have usually obtained at least an associate's degree in building design. A program will generally take between 1 and 2 years to complete. Programs in this field can be found at vocational schools and community colleges or through a distance learning program. You may continue your education through an accredited architectural school as well. Classes in this program include construction, residential home design, college algebra, physics, and construction laws and ethics. You may also go on to obtain the title of 'Certified Professional Building Designer' by gaining additional training, passing an exam, and working in building design for 6 years.

Skills Required for a Career as a Building Designer

You will need to have an interest in math, physical sciences, and construction engineering in order to excel as a building designer. Because the work often takes place in uncomfortable conditions, you will need to be willing to function in extreme environments. Finally, you will need the communication skills necessary to work with both clients and fellow construction professionals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you grasp that the code definition is and should only be used to understand words and terms used in the code to understand the code section? Usage of words that do not comply with code is acceptable and legal when it not a code text quotation or an interpretation of a code section.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				High Desert said:
			
		

> kil & rick: since we're all from Oregon, why don't we schedule a face to face debate on the subject. I can moderate the debate, and no, it will not occur in the octagon ring (MMA).


We can meet in Astoria since we will have a Residential Building Code class in Spring 2010. (Part of the Historic Preservation and Restoration program at Clatsop Community College).


----------



## kilitact

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Please read chapter 2!!! Definitions the terms Design professional and design professional are interchangeable, and repeated throughout the 2008 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, try to read and understand the code.  :!:  :roll:

High Desert, what I would appreciate is for you to officially state your position on this. One of my concerns has always been that since these are public sites a unsuspecting consumer will read these a..nine post and think you can build anything to do with residential without being required to be a design professional.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Please read chapter 2!!! Definitions the terms Design professional and design professional are interchangeable, and repeated throughout the 2008 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, try to read and understand the code.  :!:  :roll: High Desert, what I would appreciate is for you to officially state your position on this. One of my concerns has always been that since these are public sites a unsuspecting consumer will read these a..nine post and think you can build anything to do with residential without being required to be a design professional.


The only reason Design Professional is even in Chapter 2 is because of R106.3.4. The term repeated is REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.  The key word "REGISTERED". If you are a building design professional and not registered then the word is not REGISTERED but Non-registered OR Unregistered if you follow English grammar rules and proper words.

I have read Chapter 2 not once but well over 1000 times. 2007 OSSC dropped the word Design Professional from the definitions. "Design Professional" is used ONLY once other then in the Definitions in Chapter 2. That would be only 2 locations in the ENTIRE book. It can be removed from the definitions and leaving only Registered Design Profession.

For your information - Read ORS 671.030 and 672.060. The architectural and engineering act does not prohibit a person from making plans & specifications for exempt buildings such as single-family residences of any size.

There is no statutory prohibition of an unlicensed person from using the knowledge of the architectural arts & sciences and the knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences as part of the process of making plans & specifications for exempt buildings. Those unlicensed persons simply may not refer to themselves by the architect or engineer title or make claim that they are or make claim that they can offer or offer architectural or engineering services as if they are licensed. Simply put, an unlicensed design professional may not misrepresent themselves as architects or engineers and ability to offer services to non-exempt buildings.

Now to put it, I'm going to use the word design professional as I see fit. I will only use design professional in the way the code defines it IF I am making an interpretation or clarification on R106.3.4.

I am delineating Design Professional and Registered Design Professional. Registered is an adjective to the object of subject "Design Professional". "Registered" is what delineates and makes the indication that the person is a licensed/registered with the state board.

The code repeats "Registered Design Professional" but not repeat throughout the code "Design Professional" without the word "Registered". You show me where it is repeated as just "Design Professional" without the word Registered - other then R106.3.4 and in Chapter 2 definition.

We need to meet face to face. You bring a copy of the 2007 OSSC and 2008 ORSC with commentary and without the commentary. The adopted code is without ICC commentary.

The code is clear to use Registered Design Professional which I do not dispute the usage of other than when it maybe in conflict with state law and the exemption provision. That is what R102.2 addresses clearly. So then I expect something from either federal or local level at an adopted law (not regulation or administrative rules and policies) that says otherwise.


----------



## texas transplant

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

Rick and Kil,

Putting on my moderator hat.   Please either go back to the question that the thread really asked about, start a new thread in the Building Designers topic area, go private with your conversation, or just agree to disagree.

You two are acting like the irresistable force and the unmovable object.

Thanks

Texas Transplant


----------



## High Desert

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

kilitact, why would my official position have anything to do with your difference with rick? I don't have a dog in this fight and don't wish to. I was just offering an avenue that would get you and rick and your constant bickering off of these forums.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				High Desert said:
			
		

> kilitact, why would my official position have anything to do with your difference with rick? I don't have a dog in this fight and don't wish to. I was just offering an avenue that would get you and rick and your constant bickering off of these forums.


I'm willing to take the offer. Then we can schedule something... if Astoria isn't too far from you Kil.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Plan Approver and TJacobs, 2008 Oregon Residential Specialty Code
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *R302.1 Exterior walls.* Construction, projections, openings
> 
> and penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessory
> 
> buildings shall comply with Table R302.1. These provisions
> 
> shall not apply to walls, projections, openings or penetrations
> 
> in walls that are perpendicular to the line used to determine the
> 
> fire separation distance. Projections beyond the exterior wall
> 
> shall not extend more than 12 inches (305 mm) into the areas
> 
> where openings are prohibited.
> 
> Exceptions:
> 
> 1. Detached tool sheds and storage sheds, playhouses
> 
> and similar structures exempted from permits are not
> 
> required to provide wall protection based on location
> 
> on the lot. Projections beyond the exterior wall shall
> 
> not extend over the lot line.
> 
> _2. Detached garages accessory to a dwelling located_
> 
> _within 2 feet (610 mm) of a __lot line__ are permitted to_
> 
> _have roof eave projections not exceeding 4 inches_
> 
> _002 mm)._
> 
> 3. Foundation vents installed in compliance with this
> 
> code are permitted.
> 
> Table 302.1.JPG[/attachment17z6req]
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> The only thing that mentions lot line is in Exception #2. Detached Garages are ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
> 
> This pertains to fire separation construction between a dwelling and an accessory building.
> 
> TJacobs, when I say substantially parallel and substantially perpendicular.
> 
> Take a wall on a garage that is diagonal from the dwelling. Lets say it is 10 degrees +/- from being true parallel, I would still treat it as if it was parallel for all portions of the wall within 5-ft. If the wall was say only 10 degrees +/- from perpendicular then I would treat it as perpendicular. The 45 degree mark will be a tricky one. I know the dictionary definition but I am looking at fire conditions and know enough about fire that a wall that is only slightly off from parallel will need the same level of protection as if it was true parallel. Heck, in construction, it will likely not be absolutely true parallel anyway. Its rough framing anyway. So, anyway, it is a judgment call anyway.
> 
> I had to meet R302.1 as defined above with a garage/accessory workshop on the same lot with the house even though there was a 4-ft. space in between the walls of the dwelling and the accessory building.
> 
> We treat accessory buildings on the same lot much the same way as if there was a lot line.
> 
> At the time, I was working with IRC 2006 - 5 ft. rule before 2008 ORSC was adopted with amendments. Taking the stricter of IRC (5-ft.) and the stricter requirements of the 2004/2005 ORSC edition. Fire marshal would want 5-ft. anyway being fire rated. The ones in our area can be an _________. I was aiming to spec 3/4" Type X on both side. Interior and exterior grade. I remember having some questions about that. Some thoughts I had was making that wall portion be some sort of brick faces or CMU / Concrete brick or something of that sort. I would typically build the wall with brick facing and possibly some type of ICF or concrete back wall and 5/8" Type-X on the inside. This would have made construction interesting. It was an interesting thought. I also looked to the fire code as well.


Unbelievable...


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> Unbelievable...


Unbelievable..... it is.


----------



## MarkRandall

Re: Garage distance separation from dwelling - Section R309

What the heck did you guys do to my thread? I go away for a couple of days and get all this drivel in my thread. I would appreciate everyone staying on topic or go elsewhere to ramble on.

Reading the 2006 IRC, I still feel section 309 trumps section 302 when it comes to the separation of a dwelling from a detached garage on the same lot. It looks like several agree with me and a couple of people do not. That's fine.

I've completed my first scheme for this client and I'm extending the addition to a point five feet from the detached garage. I will talk it over with the client, but I'm leaning towards attaching the structures with a trellis and installing Gypsum on the interior of the garage wall. If the client decides to not do the trellis, my interpretation would allow no gypsum to be added to the existing garage.


----------



## jar546

I am resurrecting an oldie but goodie because I see that there are a lot of views by guests on this.  Anyone have anything to add?


----------

