dshall

Am I out of touch? Am I going nutty?

Recommended Posts

This question is for Perry or any other experienced designer.  I received a plan check comment that says if my roof eave on my house if less than 5' from property line it needs to be one hour  protected.

 

My house is 5' from property line,  I have a 2' eave,  my eave is min 30" from property line and the plan checker cites section R302.1 and says I need to have 5/8" type x gyp bd at underside of eave for 1 hour protection.  In 40 plus years I have never had to do this.  Has anybody else had to deal with this?

 

I spoke with JC about this,  and he has been doing this stuff for about 237 years,  and he has never seen it......  anybody else has some insight to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one hour protected if less than 5' feet in Seattle.

Okay,  I am still not convinced,  someone might have to hit me over the head with a anvil,  check out the attached pic and see if this changes your mind.  Bill,  if you are correct,  for the last 35 years in San Diego we have been doing it wrong.

 

See pic.....  it takes about walls less than 3 feet etc......

post-50-0-36843300-1446498413_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very few places here in Alaska where we would build houses that close to the lot line so I haven't personally run into this, but I just opened up the 2012 IRC to read it through and it seems pretty clear to me...

 

The 1 hr. fire assembly WOULD be required, but ONLY if the adjacent building was closer than 5ft.  (not the lot line).  The only potentially applicable mention of lot lines are in connection with accessory structures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRC you are correct and having been doing it correctly but each city can make the code more restrictive.Check with that city and ask to see a copy of their code for that item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott,

 

As I read that it says 3'.  Your walls are 5' and the eave is 2'.  So the eave is 3' from the property line and shouldn't have to be protected. 

 

However, if the city has adopted a 5' distance then that's more restrictive than IRC302.1

 

Of course, the code you posted is 2003 and current code may be more restrictive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay,  I am still not convinced,  someone might have to hit me over the head with a anvil,  check out the attached pic and see if this changes your mind.  Bill,  if you are correct,  for the last 35 years in San Diego we have been doing it wrong.

 

See pic.....  it takes about walls less than 3 feet etc......

 

Scott,

 

As I read that it says 3'.  Your walls are 5' and the eave is 2'.  So the eave is 3' from the property line and shouldn't have to be protected. 

 

However, if the city has adopted a 5' distance then that's more restrictive than IRC302.1

 

Of course, the code you posted is 2003 and current code may be more restrictive.

 The 2012 IRC is definitely more restrictive. 

 

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/icod_irc_2012_3_par041.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very few places here in Alaska where we would build houses that close to the lot line so I haven't personally run into this, but I just opened up the 2012 IRC to read it through and it seems pretty clear to me...

 

The 1 hr. fire assembly WOULD be required, but ONLY if the adjacent building was closer than 5ft.  (not the lot line).  The only potentially applicable mention of lot lines are in connection with accessory structures. 

 

Fire Separation Distance IS measured to the Lot Line, or to an imaginary line between two buildings on the SAME LOT. Very important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fire Separation Distance IS measured to the Lot Line, or to an imaginary line between two buildings on the SAME LOT. Very important.

 

Not saying you're wrong, but where in the code do you get that idea from? 

 

As I understand it, the intent of the code is structure separation, not lot line setback. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying you're wrong, but where in the code do you get that idea from? 

 

As I understand it, the intent of the code is structure separation, not lot line setback. 

 

Section R202, Definitions. It is the same definition as the IBC Chapter 7.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section R202, Definitions. It is the same definition as the IBC Chapter 7.

 

Thank you.  You are correct sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also look at section 1406 in the IBC........

 

Blessings,

 

Kevin

 

Good info, sure, but the IRC doesn't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have had to do this for about a year now but not every city catches it yet so I just leave the detail for that off unless they call for it. Most cities around here use the 5' rule.

just another bs rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my take on it.....  the distance they are talking about is BETWEEN BUILDINGS....  not from BUILDING TO PROPERTY LINE......  at least that is where I think the confusion lies.

 

Imagine an apartment project with multiple buildings on the same lot....  

 

anyway,  I will let you guys know if I am correct or if I have been wrong for the past 35  plus years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour required in phoenix

 

2012 IRC

Yes,  thanks Ben,  again if we look closely at what you posted I will assume the minimum distance is between buildings and not from building to property line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is a detail for a typical calif. eave, and I think it's to the prop. line

post-113-0-89702600-1446506836_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to do this on a project in Minneapolis, we were less than five feet from the property line. Had to install fire-rated gyp board sheathing and soffit materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,  thanks Ben,  again if we look closely at what you posted I will assume the minimum distance is between buildings and not from building to property line.

 

I see where you are going.  I concede that it isn't specific, but I think it's vague by design so that each municipality can determine what "the line used to determine the fire separation distance" is, however, throughout section 302 including exceptions, the 'lot line' is sprinkled into the wording.  So most places define or interpret that line to be the lot line.  Incorrectly or not.  Good luck fighting them on it.  Hope you win.

 

---

 

R302.1 Exterior walls. 

Construction, projections, openings and penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessory buildings shall comply with Table R302.1(1); or dwellings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section P2904 shall comply with Table R302.1(2). 

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. 3. 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. 4. 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). 5. Foundation vents installed in compliance with this code are permitted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is to the property line.

 

I have been having to comply with this for years now.

 

Andy.

post-96-0-03233700-1446507964_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's based on the property line because in the future if the neighbor decides to build closer to the shared property line, then there would be a fire separation issue if the structure isn't protected. It's all about keeping fires contained to properties, and the best way to do that is to base the regulation on the property line. Structures come and go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, you are nutty. Which is one of the reasons that I like you so much.

 

Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this funny,  we really do not have a definitive answer....  I don't think we have a definitive answer....  and Andy,  what you are saying does not specifially talk about the property line ......  

 

anyway,  all I know is that for the last 133 years I have never had to do it out here in the land of fruits and nuts.....  but I will get to the bottom of this until I have the answer that I want to hear....

 

attached is some more code stuff,  again it does not talk specifically about distance to property line......  

 

 

post-50-0-73648800-1446508329_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will see your attachment and raise you one.post-96-0-60396400-1446508620_thumb.png

 

Chapter 2, definitions.

 

Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Member Statistics

    28446
    Total Members
    9156
    Most Online
    ShayKD
    Newest Member
    ShayKD
    Joined