# R1 Occupancy or IRC residential structure???



## righter101 (Jan 26, 2012)

We have an applicant who would like to construct 3 or 4 small (pan abode, 400 sq ft ish) cabins on a parcel and use them as short term rentals, vacation rentals, transitory living.

I have been telling them all along that they would fall under the scope of the IBC as R1 occupancies.  In line with that, Washington State has separate provisions that distinguish between IRC occupancies and other residential occupancies (such as hotels).

They have been arguing that they feel the structures should be treated as IRC structures.

I am currently debating this with the CBO (my boss).  He is tending towards the opinion that the IRC is actually silent on use, specifically, it doesn't say that you can't use a SFR for transitory rentals, thus it would be appropriate to apply the IRC.

In Washington, this would be the difference between sprinkled and not (the IRC ammended by Wa. removes the sprinkler requirement, the IBC keeps it for R occupancies.)

I just wanted to get thoughts from others on this.

I am sticking by my call of R1 and an 13R system.  My call may get shot down but I was looking for other opinions and perhaps justification to support my poistion, or on the other side, those who agree with using the IRC and why that is acceptable.  I will accept either outcome but wanted to get a broader source of input.

Thanks to all in advance.


----------



## cda (Jan 26, 2012)

Is this up in the hills??

I have seen the question posed before and some places kind of exempt or have provisions for moutain rentals

Now is this going to be an actual business, like you drive down the road and see yogi's cabin rental sign??

How about zoning???


----------



## Architect1281 (Jan 26, 2012)

Righter Agree with R-1 as if R-3 would be an attempt to jump to IRC the key is here

TRANSIENT. Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 days.

one could use that definition to imply Non- Transient as 31 days plus

But then again the IRC dwelling defined = DWELLING. *Any building *that contains one or two dwelling

units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, *rented*, leased, let or *hired out to be occupied*,

or that are occupied for living purposes --- so then maybe zoning use description etc - I was going to agree but then got unconvinced by

the definition in the IRC ?? Any Building; no mention of how long to occupy transient or not in the IRC ?? so I'm confused

How could you deny it??


----------



## righter101 (Jan 26, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> Is this up in the hills??I have seen the question posed before and some places kind of exempt or have provisions for moutain rentals
> 
> Now is this going to be an actual business, like you drive down the road and see yogi's cabin rental sign??
> 
> How about zoning???


This place is called (XXXX Harbor Resort).  It is a commercially advertised vacation destination.  The have signs and are in all the tourist books.

I will look at the zoning aspects of this.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 26, 2012)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> Righter Agree with R-1 as if R-3 would be an attempt to jump to IRC the key is here TRANSIENT. Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 days.
> 
> one could use that definition to imply Non- Transient as 31 days plus
> 
> ...


That is the BO's point.  "no mention of how long to occupy..." transient or otherwise.  We allow people to get "vacation rental" permits for their single family dwellings.

For some reason it seems as though we may set a bad precedent for ourselves.  I will talk to planning tomorrow about the zoning and go from there.


----------



## cda (Jan 26, 2012)

sounds like they are putting themselves out there as a full time business motel/hotel like business, no different than marriott

sounds like a R-1


----------



## mark handler (Jan 26, 2012)

Rental.... Don't forget Accessibility. But I would say, if detached, IRC. If attached IBC.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 26, 2012)

IRC does not exclude transient occupancy.

  In addition the IBC definition of "Dwelling" is based upon the number of dwelling units AND not upon the agreement under which they are occupied, i.e. it is explicitly inclusive of rented units.

  The key provision is that each dwelling unit must provide "complete, independent living facilities."

  IMO, you are entirely and completely making up code out of whole cloth.


----------



## imhotep (Jan 27, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> We have an applicant who would like to construct 3 or 4 small (pan abode, 400 sq ft ish) cabins on a parcel and use them as short term rentals, vacation rentals, transitory living.I have been telling them all along that they would fall under the scope of the IBC as R1 occupancies.  In line with that, Washington State has separate provisions that distinguish between IRC occupancies and other residential occupancies (such as hotels).
> 
> They have been arguing that they feel the structures should be treated as IRC structures.
> 
> ...


Will the operator be required to hold a motel license from the Department of Health per Chapter 70.62 RCW?  Three (3) seems to be the magic number even if they are detached.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.62


----------



## permitguy (Jan 27, 2012)

Here's a recent discussion on the same topic, including a link to a 2007 discussion on the old board.  There's never really been consensus on this topic:

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5977-R-1-or-R-3&highlight=transient


----------



## cda (Jan 27, 2012)

I new this had been cussed before , was not sure which board.

Boy are we getting old

Thanks permit


----------



## khsmith55 (Jan 27, 2012)

Not knowing what Edition your under, I might try to classify them as R3 as permitted by 2009 IBC, Section 310.1 for congregate living facilities (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants. 400sfx4 units = 1600sf, 1600sf/200olf=8 occupants. I have successfully used this position for “short term” house rentals in ski areas.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 27, 2012)

[F] 903.2.8 Group R.

An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area .

Probably the most unreasonable and pompus requirement in the code. There should have been exceptions written in at adoption.

I would have to go with if a motel/hotel liscense is required from the state than an R-1. If it is liscensed as a campground I would lean to the IRC.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 27, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Rental.... Don't forget Accessibility. But I would say, if detached, IRC. If attached IBC.


That is one of my concerns.  If they are permitted under the IRC, there are zero provisions to make them accessible.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 27, 2012)

I worked on a similar one in the mountains of Washington State.  We treated the detached houses as residential code.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 27, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> That is one of my concerns. If they are permitted under the IRC, there are zero provisions to make them accessible.


If you have 4 or more units on the same property doesn't fair housing kick in? Not sure just asking


----------



## righter101 (Jan 27, 2012)

khsmith55 said:
			
		

> Not knowing what Edition your under, I might try to classify them as R3 as permitted by 2009 IBC, Section 310.1 for congregate living facilities (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants. 400sfx4 units = 1600sf, 1600sf/200olf=8 occupants. I have successfully used this position for “short term” house rentals in ski areas.


We are under the 2009 I-Codes, as ammended by the State of Washington.

I considered them as structures under the IBC, however, the debate is whether they should even be under the IBC or if they could be under th IRC.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 27, 2012)

mtlogcabin "If you have 4 or more units on the same property doesn't fair housing kick in? Not sure just asking "

It very well may, I am not charged with enforcing fair housing provisions though.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 27, 2012)

> It very well may, I am not charged with enforcing fair housing provisions though.


Neither am I but they request copies of our building permit every month and they did reach  settlement against another jurisdiction because the building dept failed to tell the owner/designers that fair housing may apply. Watch your back

Nov 2003

*Montana Fair Housing Reaches Agreementwith City of Missoula*
​Montana Fair Housing and the City of Missoula reached anagreement, which settles a complaint filed with the MontanaHuman Rights Bureau in April of 2003. The complaint allegedthat personnel who work for the City of Missoula were violatingfair housing laws by not providing appropriate notification topersons “prior” to the building multi-family housing.“Montana Fair Housing’s mission is to ensure that ALLMontanans have equal access to housing in this state. Webelieve some of the actions and information provided byMissoula officials was allowing apartment buildings of fourunits or more to be built in ways that are not accessible andtherefore, not compliant with the Federal Fair Housing Actand the Montana Human Rights Act. We are seeing a lot ofapartment complexes going up that are built split-level—thatis stairs leading to all apartments,” stated Bob Liston.Pursuant to the agreement, the City of Missoula will put intoplace various activities that will help ensure that owners anddevelopers understand their responsibilities for Design andConstruction requirements under various applicable laws.Among the items agreed to in this settlement are:· All City officials who have anything to do with buildingpermits, zoning, codes, etc. will attend training conductedby Montana Fair Housing;· All persons requesting a building permit will berequired to sign a letter of acknowledgement of theirunderstanding that they may be required to follow certainfederal and state accessibility standards; and· Montana Fair Housing and the City will jointly ask
​the State of Montana for interpretation and clarification of

city officials’ responsibility to inspect for federal standards.



In addition, Montana Fair Housing plans to conduct a significant number ofworkshops around Missoula and the state to better inform builders, owners,architects and building inspectors of their responsibilities under federal andstate accessibility laws.“We look forward to working collaboratively with the City of Missoula, as wellas other entities, to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal housingopportunities in Montana,” added Bob Liston, Executive Director of Montana
​Fair Housing.


----------



## cda (Jan 27, 2012)

So Marriott could build 50 of these on a property and they would not be condidered a hotel or motel

Back in the day of route 66 they were called motels


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 27, 2012)

Or a KOA with 50 site built cabins would still require sprinklers under the IBC because they are Group R

SLEEPING UNIT. A room or space in which people sleep, which can also include permanent provisions for living, eating, and either sanitation or kitchen facilities but not both. Such rooms and spaces that are also part of a dwelling unit are not sleeping units.

Some more thought and some exceptions need to be considered for section 903.2.8


----------



## righter101 (Jan 27, 2012)

The more I read the code, the more I am leaning towards agreeing with the BO's decision to allow them as IRC structures.  They are proposing adding 3 units, small detached, single dwellings.  There are already 8 or 9 on the property.  Nothing in the IRC would prevent this.  They are able to bypass accessibility as well as fire suppression by going this route.  (as well as some items such as non-absorbent surfaces in the restrooms).

They qualify as IRC structures.  No accessibility.  If they are in violation of fair housing, someone could take up a challenge against them.  After reading the mtlogcabin issue about the state of Montana, I will talk with our legal before approving these.

In response to CDA, technically, Marriott could build 50 of these, if zoning allowed it, and whether or not they are called hotels or motels is not relavent.  The crux of the issue is not use, rather, "do they fall under the scoping provisions of the IRC".  Which I do believe they do.


----------



## BSSTG (Jan 27, 2012)

Greetings,

I would consider them R3 as long as they are separated and minimum requirements of IRC chapter 3 are met. No sprinklers needed.

BS


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 27, 2012)

Well lets follow the code

2009 IBC

310.1 Residential Group R.

Residential Group R includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for sleeping purposes when not classified as an Institutional Group I or when not regulated by the International Residential Code in accordance with Section 101.2. Residential occupancies shall include the following:

Well they will be sleeping there

101.2 Scope.

The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration , movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.

Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses ) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code .

They are detached and not more than 3 stories so they are regulated by the IRC.

I believe you can use the IRC in this case


----------



## cda (Jan 27, 2012)

The basic question is does it meet R-1 per ibc

310.1 Residential Group R. Residential Group R includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for sleeping purposes when not classified as an Institutional Group I or when not regulated by the International Residential Code in accordance with Section 101.2. Residential occupancies shall include the following:

R-1 Residential occupancies containing sleeping units where the occupants are primarily transient in nature, including:

Boarding houses (transient)

Hotels (transient)

Motels (transient)

Congregate living facilities (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants are permitted to comply with the construction requirements for Group R-3.


----------



## Big Mac (Jan 27, 2012)

Righter, you say you are bound by the Washington State Ammendments to the IBC.  Please check the Washingotn State ammendment to Section 903.2.8.  Seems fairly clear that these units would be considered R-1.  However sprinklers are not required in Group R-1 occupancies IF all of the folowing conditions apply:

1. The Group R fire area is less than 500 square feet and used for recreation only

2. The Group R fire area is one story

3. The Group R fire area does not include a basement

4. The Group R fire area is not closer than 30' to another structure

5. Cooking is not allowed within the Group R fire area

6. The Group R fire area has an occupant load of no more than 8

7. A hand held (portable) fire extinguisher is in every Group R fire area

This discription fir your situation almost to a "T"

It sounds as though what you really have on-site are considerable more than 3-4 units when the new are added to the old.  Another portion of the Wa ST Ammendments states that all units on site shall be considered when determining the number of Type A and Type B units required.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 27, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Righter, you say you are bound by the Washington State Ammendments to the IBC.  Please check the Washingotn State ammendment to Section 903.2.8.  Seems fairly clear that these units would be considered R-1.  However sprinklers are not required in Group R-1 occupancies IF all of the folowing conditions apply:1. The Group R fire area is less than 500 square feet and used for recreation only
> 
> 2. The Group R fire area is one story
> 
> ...


The problem with this is that the structures, in and of themselves, meet all of the criteria to be considered under the IRC, thus we wouldn't even get in to the IBC or associated ammendments.

It seems flawed to me, but I don't think I can require them to even comply with accessbility requirements.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 27, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> The basic question is does it meet R-1 per ibc310.1 Residential Group R. Residential Group R includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for sleeping purposes when not classified as an Institutional Group I or when not regulated by the International Residential Code in accordance with Section 101.2. Residential occupancies shall include the following:
> 
> R-1 Residential occupancies containing sleeping units where the occupants are primarily transient in nature, including:
> 
> ...


I actually think the heart of the matter is "can they be considered as IRC structures?".  I think the answer is yes, reguardless of length of rental or transient nature, where the IRC is silent, thus making it allowable.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 27, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> That is one of my concerns.  If they are permitted under the IRC, there are zero provisions to make them accessible.


  There is the ADA. However, this is a case where it is not your job to enforce accessibility requirements.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 27, 2012)

khsmith55 said:
			
		

> Not knowing what Edition your under, I might try to classify them as R3 as permitted by 2009 IBC, Section 310.1 for congregate living facilities (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants. 400sfx4 units = 1600sf, 1600sf/200olf=8 occupants. I have successfully used this position for “short term” house rentals in ski areas.


  If by "successfully," you mean that you misapplied the law, then yes, you were successful.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 27, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> The basic question is does it meet R-1 per ibc


  No. Because by definition they are dwellings. See Chapter 2.


----------



## cda (Jan 27, 2012)

So a dwelling cannot be a motel/ hotel ever?


----------



## cda (Jan 27, 2012)

From a renowned person:

http://www.specsandcodes.com/Articles/The%20Code%20Corner%20No.%2014%20-%20Building%20Classification%20Part%201%20-%20Occupancies.pdf


----------



## Architect1281 (Jan 28, 2012)

I would after being confoozed say that the IRC could apply if seperate and seperated as 1 or 2 family even if multiple dwellings on the same lot - thats zoning / planning multiple residece stuff As to Accessible the Fair housing act applies if there are 4 or more units in a building and that reg states that the sum of all dwelling / sleeping units on the PROPERTY determine the number for compliance  so 8 building of 2 or 16 singles would be grater than 4 so ADA Access is necessary at 4. in the now famous words of Captain Schettino " I'm on board with that"


----------



## mark handler (Jan 28, 2012)

The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act have several similarities, *But*

The FHA does not apply to so called "transient" housing such as hotels and motels.

The FHA does cover apartment and condo units.

If these units are rental properties, for long term, such as apartments then yes, the Fair Housing Act will govern, *But*

If these units are rental properties are for a timeshare or "weekend" or even week type "rentals", the ADA governs.

Read the scoping documents of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 30, 2012)

ADA applies to places of public accommodation - structures constructed to the IRC are not exempt if they are used for non-exempt activities.

 Accessibility issues in the scenario described simply fall on the Owner, Commercial Tenants operating the facilities (as applicable), and Designer.

 The most a code official can do is to suggest those parties wear their big girl undies.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

The verdict is in.  I finally got a reply from planning/zoning.  They would only be allowed one single family residence.  Their master resort plan allows them a number of small sized transient rentals however.....

R1 it is.

Thank you to everyone that gave their input.


----------



## cda (Jan 30, 2012)

R-1's 5

R-3's 3

we win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 30, 2012)

> They would only be allowed one single family residence. Their master resort plan allows them a number of small sized transient rentals however.....


Zoning does not determine the building code you use or the type of occupany assigned


----------



## brudgers (Jan 30, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> The verdict is in.  I finally got a reply from planning/zoning.  They would only be allowed one single family residence.  Their master resort plan allows them a number of small sized transient rentals however.....  R1 it is.  Thank you to everyone that gave their input.


  Since when does zoning determine building code occupancy?   Sounds like you're just looking to watch someone dance for your amusement.


----------



## Big Mac (Jan 30, 2012)

These units are obviously planned to be used for commercial purposes with the majority of tenants being transcient.  R-1


----------



## cda (Jan 30, 2012)

so what occupancy would this be::::

http://www.vintagepostcards.org/auctions/paxtang-hummelstown-harrisburg-pa-pennsylvania-route-22-tourist-court-roadside-motel.jpg

or this

http://www.thody.net/_Media/roys_motel_amboy_route_66-2.jpeg

and especially this

http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/motels/WigwamMotelRialtoCA.jpg


----------



## Big Mac (Jan 30, 2012)

R-1 / Hotels / Motels  (Section 310.1.)


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> so what occupancy would this be::::


The same as these Adirondack Cabins


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 30, 2012)

It is all about sprinklering. The legacy codes had exceptions for units as described the IBC does not

I wonder if there are acurate fire death numbers for the single or double unit buildings or are they just included with all motel/hotel numbers


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Zoning does not determine the building code you use or the type of occupany assigned


If zoning allows only 1 (one) Single Family Residence, then to some degree it dictates that if someone is proposing to build 3 separate structures and attempts to classify them as IRC structures, it would be disallowed.

Or another way of putting it, OK, I will allow these structures to be built under the provisions of the IRC, no sprinklers, no accessibility.  Fine, however, due to zoning, you are only allowed to build one.

So, technically, zoning doesn't per se determine the building code used, it would, eventually, have a large degree of influence on occupancies (use).


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Since when does zoning determine building code occupancy?   Sounds like you're just looking to watch someone dance for your amusement.


So if the zoning requirements allow only 1 (one) Single Family Dwelling, I should just ignore those and allow them to build 3 or 4 single family dwelling??

Brugers, could you please provide me a list of which other laws and regulations I should ignore.

Also, your "dance for your amusement" comments have already surpassed trite.


----------



## cda (Jan 30, 2012)

SECTION 302

CLASSIFICATION

302.1 General. Structures or portions of structures shall be

classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the

groups listed below. Structures with multiple uses shall be classified

according to Sec tion 302.3. Where a structure is proposed

for a purpose which is not specifically provided for in

this code, such structure shall be classified in the group which

the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire

safety and relative hazard involved.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 30, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> If zoning allows only 1 (one) Single Family Residence, then to some degree it dictates that if someone is proposing to build 3 separate structures and attempts to classify them as IRC structures, it would be disallowed.Or another way of putting it, OK, I will allow these structures to be built under the provisions of the IRC, no sprinklers, no accessibility.  Fine, however, due to zoning, you are only allowed to build one.
> 
> So, technically, zoning doesn't per se determine the building code used, it would, eventually, have a large degree of influence on occupancies (use).


If they are detached dwelling units as defined in the code then they can be built under the IRC. Zoning will define the uses on a particular lot. What code is used to construct the building housing that use is the building departments call.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 30, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> If zoning allows only 1 (one) Single Family Residence, then to some degree it dictates that if someone is proposing to build 3 separate structures and attempts to classify them as IRC structures, it would be disallowed.  Or another way of putting it, OK, I will allow these structures to be built under the provisions of the IRC, no sprinklers, no accessibility.  Fine, however, due to zoning, you are only allowed to build one.  So, technically, zoning doesn't per se determine the building code used, it would, eventually, have a large degree of influence on occupancies (use).


  Under the building code each structure is a dwelling.  Unless you have modified Chapter 1, zoning is irrelevant.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 30, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> So if the zoning requirements allow only 1 (one) Single Family Residence, I should just ignore those and allow them to build 3 or 4 single family residences?? Brugers, could you please provide me a list of which other laws and regulations I should ignore.  Also, your "dance for your amusement" comments have already surpassed trite.


  Where in the building code is there a reference to "single family residence?"  The building code uses the term "dwelling."

  And that is what you are supposed to use.

  Not your imagination.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 30, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> SECTION 302 CLASSIFICATION 302.1 General. Structures or portions of structures shall be classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the groups listed below. Structures with multiple uses shall be classified according to Sec tion 302.3. Where a structure is proposed for a purpose which is not specifically provided for in this code, such structure shall be classified in the group which the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire safety and relative hazard involved.


  You're in the wrong book.  The applicable section 302 is titled "Exterior Wall Location."


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 30, 2012)

If we follow the definitions in the code you will issue a permit for a

1.Dwelling Unit

2.Two family Dwelling Unit

3. Townhouse units

 SLEEPING UNIT. A room or space in which people sleep, which can also include permanent provisions for living, eating, and either sanitation or kitchen facilities but not both. Such rooms and spaces that are also part of a dwelling unit are not sleeping units.

Remove the kitchen and you are in the IBC

Now does zoning phrohibit kitchen facilities in a hotel/motel? If yes then you are in the IBC, if not, then zoning cannot prohibit kitchen facilities in the units you described and you could use the IRC.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Where in the building code is there a reference to "single family residence?"  The building code uses the term "dwelling."
> 
> And that is what you are supposed to use.
> 
> Not your imagination.


My mistake.  I probably forgot a comma or two somewhere along the lines as well.

Ok.  They are proposing to build 3 or 4 Single Family *Dwellings*.  Zoning allows only one of these.

They would be precluded from building 3 or 4 Single Family *Dwellings*

They are, however, allowed to build quite a number of R1 Motel/Hotel transitory type living units.

There, I have set my imagination aside and used verbatim code language. The result is the same.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 30, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> My mistake.  I probably forgot a comma or two somewhere along the lines as well.    Ok.  They are proposing to build 3 or 4 Single Family *Dwellings*.  Zoning allows only one of these. They would be precluded from building 3 or 4 Single Family *Dwellings*  They are, however, allowed to build quite a number of R1 Motel/Hotel transitory type living units.  There, I have set my imagination aside and used verbatim code language. The result is the same.


  Where in the building code do you find "Single Family Dwelling?"  A dwelling is a dwelling, consisting of one or two dwelling units.  Clearly your zoning allows multiple dwelling units on the property.  I doubt your zoning ordinance in any way restricts the distribution of dwelling units within structures such that the Owner is legally required to dance for your amusement.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Where in the building code do you find "Single Family Dwelling?"  A dwelling is a dwelling, consisting of one or two dwelling units.


IBC 101.2 Scope.

The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.

Exception: *Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code.*


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

My hope in bringing this question to the forum was to get some feedback and hear arguments on both sides.  I still have an open mind and am trying to make the best decision in what could be considered a grey area.  I apprecaite the feedback and discussion on the points of debate.

We could honeslty deal without the sarcasm and cynicism from brudgers though.  It serves no good.  You can make your point without it and it will likely be better received.

For the record, the applicant hasn't even submitted anything so I am not holding a permit "hostage" or "making them dance".


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Where in the building code do you find "Single Family Dwelling?"  A dwelling is a dwelling, consisting of one or two dwelling units.  Clearly your zoning allows multiple dwelling units on the property.  I doubt your zoning ordinance in any way restricts the distribution of dwelling units within structures such that the Owner is legally required to dance for your amusement.


I use the term "single family dwelling" and "one family dwelling" interchangably.  I guess I thought that was an allowable substitution.  Single.  One.  One.  Single.  Maybe not.

It's in the building code.  "Single Family Dwelling" appears in 6 separate locations.  "One and two family dwelling" appears 31 times.

I guess we need a code change to revise this language.  Apparently it is a difficult leap of understanding and huge depth of knowledge to equate a single family to a one family.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

Come to think of it, we don't actually have a definition of "one and two family dwelling unit".  We only have a definition of "dwelling unit".  Don't even know where that leaves us??


----------



## brudgers (Jan 30, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> I use the term "single family dwelling" and "one family dwelling" interchangably.  I guess I thought that was an allowable substitution.  Single.  One.  One.  Single.  Maybe not. It's in the building code.  "Single Family Dwelling" appears in 6 separate locations.  "One and two family dwelling" appears 31 times.  I guess we need a code change to revise this language.  Apparently it is a difficult leap of understanding and huge depth of knowledge to equate a single family to a one family.


  Since one family dwellings are exempt from the IBC, typically, the more pressing revision is to your comprehension.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 30, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Come to think of it, we don't actually have a definition of "one and two family dwelling unit".  We only have a definition of "dwelling unit".  Don't even know where that leaves us??


  Again, the applicable definition is that of "dwelling."  So we are left in the same place, the one in which you ignore the code and make crap up instead.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

dwelling

one family dwelling

is there a difference??

that isn't making stuff up, it is reading the code and trying to make an interpretation where the language isn't clear.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Again, the applicable definition is that of "dwelling."  So we are left in the same place, the one in which you ignore the code and make crap up instead.


What specifically am I making up?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2012)

Do you consider a second unit, for rent, as an R2?

 Or is it under the residential code?


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Do you consider a second unit, for rent, as an R2? Or is it under the residential code?


Good question.  That is what I am trying to determine.  There are about 15 or 20 of these and they are proposing 3 or 4 more.  Very similar to the roadside motel picture that someone posted earlier in the thread (maybe even you).

Which raises the question, why can't they be classified as IRC structures and built under that code?

Contrary to what Brudgers may think, I am not set in my way and trying to jackbootedly impose unreasonable requirements on anyone.  I am trying to determine the best application of the code.  My mind is not made up and I am only seeking to resolve this question before they come in and submit for permit.

I did find a Washington State Building Code Interpretation

go to https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/apps/sbcc/Page.aspx?nid=70

and read Interpretation # 10-02

They pretty much answered that you could potentialy use the IRC, but the R1 IBC would be more appropriate.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Do you consider a second unit, for rent, as an R2? Or is it under the residential code?


Are you referring to a situation with like a duplex, one side owned and lived in, other side rented.??


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Are you referring to a situation with like a duplex, one side owned and lived in, other side rented.??


"....one side owned and lived in, other side rented...?

Does it matter in the code used? residental code or IBC?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Good question.  That is what I am trying to determine.  There are about 15 or 20 of these and they are proposing 3 or 4 more.  Very similar to the roadside motel picture that someone posted earlier in the thread (maybe even you).  Which raises the question, why can't they be classified as IRC structures and built under that code?
> 
> Contrary to what Brudgers may think, I am not set in my way and trying to jackbootedly impose unreasonable requirements on anyone.  I am trying to determine the best application of the code.  My mind is not made up and I am only seeking to resolve this question before they come in and submit for permit.
> 
> ...


Washington State Building Code Interpretation

In this regard, the IBC commentary notes that “extended-stay hotels” that may well have the characteristics of dwelling units still ought to be classified as Group R-1, except for those that require a stay of more than 30 days.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 30, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> "....one side owned and lived in, other side rented...?Does it matter in the code used? residental code or IBC?


In Washington, it does matter.  The state has specifically unadopted the IRC provisions for fire sprinklers.  Anything under the IRC would not require automatic fire suppression.  Hotels, motels, and similar built under the IBC (in fact all residential occupancies) would require fire sprinklers.

The next issue that would matter is the application of the ANSI standards.  I am only charged with enforcement of the IBC CH 11 and ANSI standard, but it seems like a gap or a flaw to allow what is rightfully a hotel to circumvent these requirements.

But that may not be my concern.  If these can truly be permitted as IRC structures, and the owners file for permit and elect to have them built as such, then they will be allowed to make motel units with roof decks having only 36" guards instead of 42", not provide fire suppression, have handrails on one side, not provide accessibility, and not provide a "non abosorbent" surface on the walls surrounding the toilet.

I can make friends with it but it seems off.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 31, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> In Washington, it does matter.  The state has specifically unadopted the IRC provisions for fire sprinklers.  Anything under the IRC would not require automatic fire suppression.  Hotels, motels, and similar built under the IBC (in fact all residential occupancies) would require fire sprinklers.  The next issue that would matter is the application of the ANSI standards.  I am only charged with enforcement of the IBC CH 11 and ANSI standard, but it seems like a gap or a flaw to allow what is rightfully a hotel to circumvent these requirements.  But that may not be my concern.  If these can truly be permitted as IRC structures, and the owners file for permit and elect to have them built as such, then they will be allowed to make motel units with roof decks having only 36" guards instead of 42", not provide fire suppression, have handrails on one side, not provide accessibility, and not provide a "non abosorbent" surface on the walls surrounding the toilet.  I can make friends with it but it seems off.


  I don't get it.   Your job is to enforce the code in accord with the law.

  If you want to design buildings, cowboy up and become an architect.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 31, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I don't get it.   Your job is to enforce the code in accord with the law.
> 
> If you want to design buildings, cowboy up and become an architect.


In case you missed one repeated theme througout this thread, which is understandable, given the volume of your sarcasm and cynicism, I have maintained that this is a debate to reach a conclusion.  This isn't some predetermined path I am set on and bound and determined to carry out.

I am not subverting laws and making folks dance, as you seem to presume about everyone.

I prefer to take an extra minute to make a decision and have a good understanding of all potential issues involved.

That is all I am doing here.

You tend to insert your opinion of a code interpretation, which is fine, that is what this forum is for, but then you launch personal attacks at anyone who you remotely disagree with.  Its getting old.  The whole dance thing, etc.

To date, these people haven't even submitted for a permit so I am holding nothing up.  Furthermore, I am still working on deciding which path to take.  No decision has been made.  Do you understand that?  No one has been victimized or made to dance.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 31, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> In case you missed one repeated theme througout this thread, which is understandable, given the volume of your sarcasm and cynicism, I have maintained that this is a debate to reach a conclusion.  This isn't some predetermined path I am set on and bound and determined to carry out.  I am not subverting laws and making folks dance, as you seem to presume about everyone.  I prefer to take an extra minute to make a decision and have a good understanding of all potential issues involved.  That is all I am doing here.    You tend to insert your opinion of a code interpretation, which is fine, that is what this forum is for, but then you launch personal attacks at anyone who you remotely disagree with.  Its getting old.  The whole dance thing, etc.  To date, these people haven't even submitted for a permit so I am holding nothing up.  Furthermore, I am still working on deciding which path to take.  No decision has been made.  Do you understand that?  No one has been victimized or made to dance.


  I am certain you are trying to reach a conclusion.   And will continue to ignore the correct conclusion until you are able to reach it.


----------



## AegisFPE (Jan 31, 2012)

What if the applicant should come in tomorrow and declare, "You know what, I'm just gonna build the cabins for each of my kids. The work will just result in elaborate on-grade treehouses."

Instead of encouraging such circumvention, consider if they were going to be straight-permitted cabins for each family member in a family compound, you would probably not bat an eye at applying the IRC, even though the family may only come together there once in a while.

Then say when they aren't there, the family lets others stay there. When I go on vacation, I have paid someone to stay at my place and feed the dog, et al.

If there is some barrier to renting them out that will be insurmountable if they are not designed and constructed as commercial buildings, then by all means share that with the applicant.

IMHO, heed the advice of your CBO to work with the applicant, not against them, within the allowances of the code. It would be too bad to cause more unpermitted construction or hidden work, because you develop an adversarial relationship for your jurisdiction amongst the development community.

On the other hand, I was involved in a PUD with multiple duplex SFR that were going to be similar to a vacation timeshare use (individually owned, and perhaps rented out). Notice, that IBC calls this Group R-2, not R-1. I do not think the WA interpretation precludes the use of R-2 as a use similar to a timeshare. The conclusion there was that not every DU would be required to be fully accessible, but that the proper proportion would need to be accessible.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 31, 2012)

Every vacation destination has single family homes that where built for the sole purpose of weekend, weekly or monthly rentals. We have them at ski resorts, lake fronts and ocean front beaches. Taking the definition of transient and applying to every project that you know will be a rental and then appling the IBC to the project may seem logical

but I don't believe the intent of the code is to be that restrictive.

I agree with AEGIS since you know they will be short term rentals advice them of the different agencies that may have jurisdiction over there project or operations.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 31, 2012)

AegisFPE said:
			
		

> What if the applicant should come in tomorrow and declare, "You know what, I'm just gonna build the cabins for each of my kids. The work will just result in elaborate on-grade treehouses."Instead of encouraging such circumvention, consider if they were going to be straight-permitted cabins for each family member in a family compound, you would probably not bat an eye at applying the IRC, even though the family may only come together there once in a while.
> 
> Then say when they aren't there, the family lets others stay there. When I go on vacation, I have paid someone to stay at my place and feed the dog, et al.
> 
> ...


Thank you for a well reasoned arguement.  It makes a lot of sense what you are saying.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 31, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Every vacation destination has single family homes that where built for the sole purpose of weekend, weekly or monthly rentals. We have them at ski resorts, lake fronts and ocean front beaches. Taking the definition of transient and applying to every project that you know will be a rental and then appling the IBC to the project may seem logicalbut I don't believe the intent of the code is to be that restrictive.
> 
> I agree with AEGIS since you know they will be short term rentals advice them of the different agencies that may have jurisdiction over there project or operations.


Again, thanks to you and AEGIS for the input.  It makes sense what you are saying and the rational behind it.  Much appreciated.


----------



## Big Mac (Jan 31, 2012)

Rental units that can be rented on a less than 30 consecutive day basis has been determined to be R-1 in accordance with IBC interpretation and Washington State Building Code Council interpretation.  Of course for those that have no regard for the laws as written, that won't matter.


----------



## north star (Jan 31, 2012)

*&*

righter101 ( & others),

Try not to be put off or intimidated or drawn into an argument / vitriolic

exchange with brudgers.....He feeds on this type of exchange and feels

important by his attacks.......Actually, I'm not sure why he is still hanging

around here with a bunch of "perceived", ...heavy handed, ...lazy,

...government thugs who continually make up codes to satisfy our

goliath size egos. 

Shirley, he could find another forum to soar like an eagle on and not

associate with us lowly code buzzards!

*&*


----------



## righter101 (Jan 31, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Rental units that can be rented on a less than 30 consecutive day basis has been determined to be R-1 in accordance with IBC interpretation and Washington State Building Code Council interpretation.  Of course for those that have no regard for the laws as written, that won't matter.


I sent a question to the ICC.

The Washington SBCC seemed to waffle and offer either R1 or IRC, at the BO's discresion.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 31, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *&*righter101 ( & others),
> 
> Try not to be put off or intimidated or drawn into an argument / vitriolic
> 
> ...


Thanks for the insight on that.  I had noticed and realized it, just got draw in on this one, but I will avoid it in the future.

I am working on a new musical score that will be played when I make people dance for my amusement getting permits.  It will be titled "Ode to Brudgers".  it will be a catchy tune and should be easy to dance to.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 1, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> I sent a question to the ICC.  The Washington SBCC seemed to waffle and offer either R1 or IRC, at the BO's discresion.


  Congratulations on dragging out a simple occupancy  decision for almost a week.  "When I don't like the code, I stonewall" is the name of that tune.


----------



## righter101 (Feb 1, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *&*righter101 ( & others),
> 
> Try not to be put off or intimidated or drawn into an argument / vitriolic
> 
> ...


Yes I'm serious, and stop calling me Shirley!!!


----------



## righter101 (Feb 1, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Congratulations on dragging out a simple occupancy  decision for almost a week.  "When I don't like the code, I stonewall" is the name of that tune.


I am afraid this could take much longer than a week.

I decided that not only do they need to dance for my amusement, but then need to wear costumes as well and the costumes are on backorder.


----------



## Jim B (Feb 1, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> I am afraid this could take much longer than a week.


righter101,

As far as I am concerned, you have every right to continue this discussion until the IBC 2212 is printed.

I am not aware that there is any bandwidth restrictions in posting to the discussion board.

I also don't see where someone *HAS *to read every posting or reply to a posting. It is purley optional.

"Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge."  ~Alfred North Whitehead


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 1, 2012)

I see this as an IRC issue, especially due the the non attached nature of it. It seems to me that the whole issue with building safety in the IBC "R" structures is due to the multiple attached units, combined with transient living and the spread of fire (intent). Will there be cooking and sanitation in these units? If so, they are IRC. I'm in Washinton State as well.

I like Aegis(?) response. I am all for MINIMUM code, and not creating an attitude of distain toward building departments/codes.

As far as zoning is concerned, tell your planners you are going to approve these as IRC structures, and let them hassle over it within their range of approval. I work with planners, giving my reasoning for these kinds of things, and try to get them to see things in a "MINIMUM code" aspect as well.

Not that I think that Brudgers needs someone to speak for him, but I absolutly love reading his posts. This is a very good topic. Thanks...


----------



## righter101 (Mar 5, 2012)

THE ICC GOT BACK WITH THEIR OPINION:  Copied below:

On January 31, 2012 we received your e-mail of January 30th concerning the applicability and scope of the building and residential codes.  We apologize for the lateness of our response.  Our answers to your correspondence are contained herein and are based on the above referenced code sections.

We understand your situation involves an existing vacation cabin rental operation.  The size of the facility will be increased by the construction of additional new cabins.  You are specifically asking whether these proposed cabins should be designed, constructed and regulated under the IBC or the IRC.  The answer is the ICC International Building Code/2009.

The stated scope of the IRC includes detached single-family houses, detached simple duplexes and townhouses intended to be fully functioning dwelling units.  These units typically contain components that provide living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation accommodations as independent living facilities.  Although these dwelling units can certainly be owned by one party and then rented or leased to other individuals, it is inherently understood that the use of these units is still done on a relatively continuous and non-transient basis.

Truly, the rental of houses or cabins on a weekly basis meets the IBC’s definition of transient in Section 310.2.  Although vacation houses and cabins are not really “congregate living facilities”, the building code would probably permit them to be classified as Residential Group R-3.  Most likely, a rental house located on an individual lot can still be considered as no different than a regular house and controlled and regulated under the IRC.  A group of rental cabins located on a site functions the same as any other commercial development.  They should be controlled and regulated under the IBC, although each cabin could be classified as Residential Group R-3.

We hope this answers your concerns in full.  If you have any further questions, please call.  Code opinions issued by the ICC staff are based on ICC published codes and do not include any local, state or federal codes, policies or amendments.  These opinions are based on the information which you have provided.  We have made no independent effort to verify the accuracy of this information nor have we conducted a review beyond the scope of your questions.  These opinions do not imply approval of an equivalency, specific product, specific design or specific installation and cannot be published in any form implying such approval by the International Code Council.  As these opinions are only advisory, the final decision is the responsibility of the designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code.

Very truly yours,

Gary L. Nelson, P.E.

Senior Staff Engineer

A & E Plan Review Dept.

International Code Council, Inc.

Chicago District Office

1-888-ICC-SAFE, ext 4311

www.iccsafe.org


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> THE ICC GOT BACK WITH THEIR OPINION:  Copied below:  On January 31, 2012 we received your e-mail of January 30th concerning the applicability and scope of the building and residential codes.  We apologize for the lateness of our response.  Our answers to your correspondence are contained herein and are based on the above referenced code sections.   We understand your situation involves an existing vacation cabin rental operation.  The size of the facility will be increased by the construction of additional new cabins.  You are specifically asking whether these proposed cabins should be designed, constructed and regulated under the IBC or the IRC.  The answer is the ICC International Building Code/2009.   The stated scope of the IRC includes detached single-family houses, detached simple duplexes and townhouses intended to be fully functioning dwelling units.  These units typically contain components that provide living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation accommodations as independent living facilities.  Although these dwelling units can certainly be owned by one party and then rented or leased to other individuals, it is inherently understood that the use of these units is still done on a relatively continuous and non-transient basis.   Truly, the rental of houses or cabins on a weekly basis meets the IBC’s definition of transient in Section 310.2.  Although vacation houses and cabins are not really “congregate living facilities”, the building code would probably permit them to be classified as Residential Group R-3.  Most likely, a rental house located on an individual lot can still be considered as no different than a regular house and controlled and regulated under the IRC.  A group of rental cabins located on a site functions the same as any other commercial development.  They should be controlled and regulated under the IBC, although each cabin could be classified as Residential Group R-3.   We hope this answers your concerns in full.  If you have any further questions, please call.  Code opinions issued by the ICC staff are based on ICC published codes and do not include any local, state or federal codes, policies or amendments.  These opinions are based on the information which you have provided.  We have made no independent effort to verify the accuracy of this information nor have we conducted a review beyond the scope of your questions.  These opinions do not imply approval of an equivalency, specific product, specific design or specific installation and cannot be published in any form implying such approval by the International Code Council.  As these opinions are only advisory, the final decision is the responsibility of the designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code.   Very truly yours,   Gary L. Nelson, P.E. Senior Staff Engineer A & E Plan Review Dept. International Code Council, Inc. Chicago District Office 1-888-ICC-SAFE, ext 4311 www.iccsafe.org


  Wow!  I must have missed the requirement for individual lots in the IRC - and in the IBC.

  I guess making the public dance has become a part of the ICC's official agenda.

  Since absolutely no code citation is provided to support their position.

  And ignores the difference between "sleeping unit" and "dwelling unit" upon which an R1 designation relies.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 5, 2012)

Sounds like a best of both worlds approach and you get to keep them unsprinklered by jumping over to the IRC when you need to.  Thanks for posting the ICC response.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

Most of the cabins that I have 'camped' in did not have plumbing, a few no electric, and none of them had heat or air. Sprinklers... ouch just not going to happen in most places.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 5, 2012)

> They should be controlled and regulated under the IBC, although each cabin could be classified as Residential Group R-3.


R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature

The stated scope of the IRC includes detached single-family houses, detached simple duplexes and townhouses intended to be fully functioning dwelling units. ........ it is inherently understood that the use of these units is still done on a relatively continuous and non-transient basis.

And an R-3 is also inherently understood to be non-transient.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 5, 2012)

The one I am looking at renting this summer near Estes Park wouldn't pass CABO, and all my meals will be cooked outside.  I will keep a 6 pack of moose drool in the creek to keep it cold.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 5, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature ...and an R-3 is also inherently understood to be non-transient.


I think this is the sentence that says it all:



			
				Gary L. Nelson said:
			
		

> _"Truly, the rental of houses or cabins on a weekly basis meets the IBC’s definition of transient in Section 310.2. Although vacation houses and cabins are not really “congregate living facilities”, the building code would probably permit them to be classified as Residential Group R-3."_


When the ICC uses the phrase like "not really" and words like "probably" in their opinion letters, it suggests they aren't buying what they are selling either, or in this case have already sold, and that is usually sold and measured by the ton.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> The one I am looking at renting this summer near Estes Park wouldn't pass CABO, and all my meals will be cooked outside.  I will keep a 6 pack of moose drool in the creek to keep it cold.


Yep that’s the type cabin I'm used to. May be safer to sleep in a tent, way less bugs in the tent, tent smells better, tent won't kill you when it collapses in a stiff wind, tent gives more natural ambience with a slightly less safety factor where animals may be concerned, but no way will the wife care one bit about any of that except the animal part that part will be the linchpin of argument for the cabin.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 5, 2012)

> Although these dwelling units can certainly be owned by one party and then rented or leased to other individuals, it is inherently understood that the use of these units is still done on a relatively continuous and non-transient basis.


Who says?

Along the same lines as the post above, this shows that ICC is winging it, which is no news to any of us. I went all through the IRC, and nowhere could I find "inherently understood" in the scoping provisions.

There is nothing "inherently understood" that some ICC guy's opinion has any more credibility than any other knowledgeable code professional.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 5, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> There is nothing "inherently understood" that some ICC guy's opinion has any more credibility than any other knowledgeable code professional.


I think the following paragraph qualifies ICC's opinions in such a way that they are inherently understood to be no more meaningful than anybody else's opinions...translation: the ICC, taking a stand for once and boiler-plating their way out of a wet paper bag.



			
				ICC said:
			
		

> _"These opinions do not imply approval of an equivalency, specific product, specific design or specific installation and cannot be published in any form implying such approval by the International Code Council. As these opinions are only advisory, the final decision is the responsibility of the designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code."_


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

It really does'nt matter if it is an R1, most of the cabins are small enough to have a design occupant load well under 10 which would allow them to be held to an R3 standard.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 5, 2012)

Sprinklers.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Sprinklers.


Our state has made sprinklers and option for R3 construction, if the DP keeps the design occupant load at 10 or less / 2000 sq. ft. or less, then no sprinkler


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I think this is the sentence that says it all:   When the ICC uses the phrase like "not really" and words like "probably" in their opinion letters, it suggests they aren't buying what they are selling either, or in this case have already sold, and that is usually sold and measured by the ton.


  Sold in ten pound lots.   Packaged in five pound bags.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Yep that’s the type cabin I'm used to. May be safer to sleep in a tent, way less bugs in the tent, tent smells better, tent won't kill you when it collapses in a stiff wind, tent gives more natural ambience with a slightly less safety factor where animals may be concerned, but no way will the wife care one bit about any of that except the animal part that part will be the linchpin of argument for the cabin.


  If a campground rents tents, do the tents need to be sprinklered?


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If a campground rents tents, do the tents need to be sprinklered?


No, nope, and not required.



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> I think he has to prohibit downspouts from discharging on sidewalks first.


Some one may just have the downspouts discharge inside the cabin and call it a sprinkler system


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

A large enough cabin would need to be sprinkled, 400 sq. ft. cabin not so much.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

khsmith55 said:
			
		

> Not knowing what Edition your under, I might try to classify them as R3 as permitted by 2009 IBC, Section 310.1 for congregate living facilities (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants. 400sfx4 units = 1600sf, 1600sf/200olf=8 occupants. I have successfully used this position for “short term” house rentals in ski areas.


Ah see kh had it right months ago :cheers


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> No, nope, and not required.


  Why?  Clearly the occupants are transient.

  Clearly the structures are intended to serve as sleeping rooms.

  Which brings up the question, how do you sprinkler shelters along the AT?


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Why?  Clearly the occupants are transient.
> 
> Clearly the structures are intended to serve as sleeping rooms.
> 
> Which brings up the question, how do you sprinkler shelters along the AT?


Not required look it up... IBC 3103 temp tents, or IFC chapter 24.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2012)

Still has a group R fire area.

  And all structures are required to be classified by 301.1


----------

