ICC - International Code Council
 
Cart                                                                   
Skip to main content
 
Misc

Your ICC Account

Email:
Password:
Bookmark and Share
Green Building Certification

Codes & Standards Discussion Forum 

Welcome to the ICC Codes & Standards Discussion Forum

The Code Council has revisited how best to provide an online, professional Discussion Forum and area within the website that has a sense of community – where Members and nonmembers can provide input and exchange ideas with their peers in the industry. The new Codes & Standards Discussion Forum does just that, as it allows Registered Website Users and ICC Members to discuss the I-Codes in an online community.

Members Area Codes & Standards Discussion Forum

Note to Nonmembers: If you join the ICC you can have access to important building safety information!

Members Area Codes & Standards Discussion Forum

As an ICC Member, you have access to the Members Area of the Codes & Standards Discussion Forum. Follow the link to discuss the Membership Councils and other benefits of being an ICC Member.


29 post(s) First 1 2 > Last
Search 
IBC/IRC
This forum is under moderation. Your reply will appear when it is approved.
Re: IBC/IRC By  maniac

Posts: 0

6/29/2006 3:41:00 PM

Is it a TOWNHOUSE. A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which [b]each unit extends from foundation to roof and with open space on at least two sides.[/b]

Or a condominium?

If it is a townhouse use the IRC if it is a condominium or, not defined as a townhouse, use the IBC.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  Tvin

Posts: 0

6/29/2006 3:55:00 PM

It extends from foundation to roof (no units under or above it). Which as i read this it would be under the IRC and defined as a townhouse.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  maniac

Posts: 0

6/30/2006 6:10:00 AM

Yes, IRC not IBC.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  cof

Posts: 0

7/4/2006 10:26:00 AM

Tvin; Condo is a term intended to confound and confuse code officials.
By definition; in the ''03 IRC a ''dwelling'' is ''a building that contains one or two ''dwelling units''; hence the reference to One and Two family dwelling code. A ''townhouse'' is defined as a grouping of three or more attached ''single-family dwelling units''.
Therefore; if the buildings in your project contain more than two ''dwelling units'' per grouping then you are dealing with ''townhouses''. Section R-317.2 tells us that a ''townhouse'' shall also be considered a separate building and Section R-317.2 and the exception to it tell us how these units are to be separated from each other.
Simply stated, if a ''townhouse'' is separated from adjacent units as specified in Section R-317.2 then it may be reviewed under the IRC. If on the otherhand the individual ''townhouses'' are not separated as specified in Section R-317.2 then the project would be reviewed under the IBC as an R-2 occupancy and the separation required between each unit would be a 1 hour ''dwelling unit separation''.
What it all boils down to is; if a two hour separation is required between the individual units the IRC governs; if not a one hour separation is required between dwelling unit and the IBC would be the governing code.
Hope this helps.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  Paul Sweet

Posts: 0

7/4/2006 5:08:00 PM

As Maniac pointed out the critical distinction is that for a townhouse subject to the IRC each unit must extend from foundation to roof and with open space on at least two sides. If any units are over or under (or partly over or under) any other units or other spaces (parking, etc.), they are R-2 subject to the IBC.

Condominium is just a form of ownership. In condominium townhouses you just own what it inside the walls, and the yard is common space. Fee simple ownership includes the entire plot. If any units are over other units they have to be condominium, cooperative, or apartment.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  fourbtgait

Posts: 0

10/30/2006 10:55:00 AM

Am I correct in my thinking that a townhouse under the 2003 IRC does not require its own property line between units subdividing the lots, that all units can be built on one parcel of land with just the 2 hour wall for separation? I was thinking the definition used to read, that a townhouse had a legal property line between units and was placed on its own lot.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  David Caveat

Posts: 0

10/30/2006 11:13:00 AM

That is correct. A group of townhomes do not require an actual property line....they may, on the other hand...have one.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  thelunatick1

Posts: 0

10/31/2006 7:07:00 AM

Isn''t there property lines and code assumed property lines?

"EG" that the vertical wall separating the townhomes may be considered an assumed property line even though none actually exists?


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  sol

Posts: 0

11/1/2006 6:19:00 AM

If it meets the definition of Townhouse you can use either code the IRC or the IBC. Its really up to the architect which code they want to use.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  clearly

Posts: 0

11/1/2006 7:30:00 AM

sol 2006 IBC Section 101.2 Exception indicates that if your building meets the definition of townhouse you "...shall comply with the IRC".

I don''t see where you can use either the IBC or the IRC at your discretion.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  sol

Posts: 0

11/2/2006 6:50:00 AM

Yes I agree with shall but that does not say it must. Where does it say you can''t use the IBC. If they call them condo''s instead of townhouses then you would use the IBC.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  sol

Posts: 0

11/2/2006 6:56:00 AM

You can use the IBC to build a SFR. There references in the IRC that will kick you over to the IBC especially about engineering issues.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  cof

Posts: 0

11/2/2006 8:27:00 AM

sol; I would hope my preveious posting on this thread might answer your question, if not. ''Townhouses'' may be built under either the IRC or the IBC, but it is not always the designers choice as to which Code is used.
If the building is constructed as a ''condo'' project the occupancy group would be R-2. In this instance there would be no option, the required code would be the IBC and the separation required between the ''dwelling units'' would be a ''fire partition'' specifically a ''dwelling unit separation'' which would require a one hour fire resistance rating.
If on the other hand the project is not a ''condo'' condition then the the separation required between the units would be either a ''common'' two hour wall or two one hour exterior walls.
With all this having been said, remember the Code is a minimum standard and you can always exceed the required minimum if you so choose.
The IBC can always be used to build a SFD but with few exceptions is it ever the required code.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  sol

Posts: 0

11/2/2006 1:45:00 PM

cof I agree with you and It is not always the designers choice.


   

Re: IBC/IRC By  clearly

Posts: 0

11/6/2006 8:36:00 AM

It really doesn''t matter what you call your structure. And it doesn''t matter if it does or does not have property lines running through or around the structure.

What does matter is if the structures that you are reviewing are "...multiple single-family dwellings not more than three stories high with separate means of egress...", then you "...shall comply with the IRC" (2006 IBC Section 101.2 Exception AND IRC Section R101.2).

As far as I can see, you don''t have the option of using either one code or the other. No matter what the structure is called (by designers, realtors, builders, owners, developers, lawyers, bankers, etc., etc., etc.), the proper code designation/definition of the structure will guide you to the proper code and the requirements of that code.


   

29 post(s) First 1 2 > Last
Design and Construction Week 2015
2015 I-Codes