706.1.1

In North Carolina, although this should apply in many states, Party Walls are defined as buildings along a lot line and the party wall is allowed no openings except under the one exclusion that was made for mall. If you happen to own both buildings along that lot line and need to keep them as separate buildings, (same owner different PIN numbers), rather than combine them and want to open a space in the party wall between them you run into 706.1.1 as there is no provision for two building with the same ownership that need to be kept as separate properties. There is also no variances allowed in NC at the local level, only an "alternate method"

Does anyone know of a precedent being set where openings are allowed in party walls because both building are owned by the same owner in NC or elsewhere? It seems simple enough as the intent of "party wall'' was established as a protective device for different owners but we are having a difficult time getting with out building protective doors, shutters and water curtains. These of course would work for an opening in a protective barrier but really don't apply'in this case as the building would meet the requirement of the exclusion by having sprinkler systems installed in both building that meet the requirement of 903.3.1.1 

Any instances of openings being allowed in party walls would be much appreciated.

Thanks

       

Original Post

Ted

You really need an attorney that is well versed in the North Carolina "plat" laws and property Owners' rights.

There are a number of States that allow adjacent properties to have openings between them when proper rights and responsibilities are conferred between the adjacent properties and recorded as deed restrictions. Sometimes these inter-parcel agreements are covered by "condo" legislation.

Good luck

I can appreciate that. 

You would think that owning both properties would remove the 706.1.1 issue solely because it was established for different owners but there seems to be no method of reducing the constraints of it by having an alternate code or exception where a lot line can exists between two properties of the same ownership. Surely this happens quite a bit. 

Thanks for your suggestion. 

Ted

Even though the properties are same ownership still requires the fire protection as either property can be sold at any time to a new owner.

 

You have the option to merge the parcels into one so they can be used as one. Later if you wish to sell one, then split them and put the fire wall back together. Most state "plat" acts have provisions for merging and split that do not require major reviews such as Planning laws but most likely will still require administrative review by Fire and Building.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×
×