# RV Park



## Rick18071 (Mar 18, 2019)

In a RV park would decks, sheds and roofs be under the IBC or IRC? 
A RV park is a commercial operation but it would seem to me that having guards 48" high and required engineering, etc. is asking for to much for a RV. But RV's are not under the IRC ether.


----------



## RLGA (Mar 18, 2019)

It is a "dwelling" by IRC definition and is not more than three stories in height, therefore, the IRC seems applicable since it also covers "accessory structures," in which I would consider a deck.

BTW, guards need only be 42 inches in height.


----------



## tmurray (Mar 18, 2019)

We consider it a single family home


----------



## RLGA (Mar 18, 2019)

My lack of understanding the IRC is evident...guards per the IRC need only be 36 inches in height.


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 18, 2019)

So you are saying that the RV is a single family home? Wouldn't that mean the the RV would have to be inspected as a single family home?


----------



## cda (Mar 18, 2019)

Do you have special adopted rules for mobile home parks??


----------



## RLGA (Mar 18, 2019)

RVs, no--mobile homes or manufactured housing, probably not, except for their installation on the lot. If the RV owner owns the land/space on which they connect their RV, then the lot is probably designated as residential and the RV considered as a dwelling, and any "accessory structures" would likely be regulated under the IRC.


----------



## cda (Mar 18, 2019)

Some reading::



https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...mobile-homes-and-additions.14646/#post-158821


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 18, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> is asking for to much for a RV.


You are not asking anything as far as the RV is concerned. They are built to ANSI standards and not built for permanent occupancy. I agree you should have permits for decks, sheds over 200 sg ft and all roof overs similar to your picture
2018 IRC
R105.2 Work exempt from permit.
Exemption from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:
Building:
1.    One-story detached accessory structures, provided that the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet (18.58 m2).
2.    Fences not over 7 feet (2134 mm) high.
3.    Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge.
4.    Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 927 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 to 1.
5.    Sidewalks and driveways.
6.    Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work.
7.    Prefabricated swimming pools that are less than 24 inches (610 mm) deep.
8.    Swings and other playground equipment.
9.    Window awnings supported by an exterior wall that do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require additional support.
10.    Decks not exceeding 200 square feet (18.58 m2) in area, that are not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade at any point, are not attached to a dwelling and do not serve the exit door required by Section R311.4.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 18, 2019)

An RV park would seem to indicate stays not to exceed 30 days. What you show would seem to indicate long term occupancy or possibly a managers office but it cannot be readily moved, can it?


----------



## my250r11 (Mar 18, 2019)

Permits required for all decks, Acc. struc. over 200sqf. Also would need notarized letter from property owner of park to allow and must meet all setbacks for zoning.


----------



## tmurray (Mar 18, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> So you are saying that the RV is a single family home? Wouldn't that mean the the RV would have to be inspected as a single family home?


I'm saying it is treated as one.

OK, flip this on it's head. Given the use of the property, what risk are you mitigating by increasing the guard height and making the structure (deck, roof, whatever) meet more restrictive loading requirements? Are people willing to pay for the added cost to mitigate these risks?


----------



## tmurray (Mar 18, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> An RV park would seem to indicate stays not to exceed 30 days. What you show would seem to indicate long term occupancy or possibly a managers office but it cannot be readily moved, can it?


These are usually all but permanent.


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 19, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> An RV park would seem to indicate stays not to exceed 30 days. What you show would seem to indicate long term occupancy or possibly a managers office but it cannot be readily moved, can it?



Some RV's have been here for over 30 years used on weekends or all summer. Office is in a rebuilt mobile home that was used since the 60's, way before codes where adopted here (2004).


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 19, 2019)

[RB] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure that is
accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and that
is located on the same lot.

I guess I can call the RV a dwelling but not sure if I can call the RV parking/camping space a "lot".

[RB] LOT. A portion or parcel of land considered as a unit.


----------



## JCraver (Mar 19, 2019)

An rv is not a dwelling, and therefore, any decks, carports, sheds, etc. attached to or adjacent to them on the same parcel are not accessory structures.  If there is no dwelling unit or primary structure on the parcel, then it's an empty parcel as far as the IRC is concerned.  Everything on that parcel doesn't exist, according to the code.

This is a zoning problem.  Our zoning wouldn't allow what the pic in the first post shows, so the issue would be moot.  If your zoning permits it, then you're down to the definitions that are present in your code(s), and whether or not your municipal atty. is comfortable arguing that the rv's are "dwellings" when he gets to court.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 20, 2019)

"Points" noted, it comes down to "definitions", and "intent?"


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 25, 2019)

JCraver said:


> An rv is not a dwelling, and therefore, any decks, carports, sheds, etc. attached to or adjacent to them on the same parcel are not accessory structures. If there is no dwelling unit or primary structure on the parcel, then it's an empty parcel as far as the IRC is concerned. Everything on that parcel doesn't exist, according to the code.



So you are saying that these structures would be under the IBC?


----------



## tmurray (Mar 25, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> "Points" noted, it comes down to "definitions", and "intent?"


I believe it relies more on the "intent" than the "by the book" enforcement of the code. But, then again, I'm in a country where our supreme court has expressly stated that government officials must exercise discretion in enforcement.


----------



## ICE (Mar 25, 2019)

California 2017 IRC:

R312.1.2 Height. Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) in height as measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
Exceptions:

Guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the lead- ing edges of the treads.
Where the top of the guard serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) as measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.

California 2017 IBC:

1015.3 Height. Required guards shall be not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically as follows:

From the adjacent walking surfaces.
On stairways and stepped aisles, from the line connecting the leading edges of the tread nosings.
On ramps and ramped aisles, from the ramp surface at the guard.
Exceptions:

For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, where the top of the guard also serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
The guard height in assembly seating areas shall comply with Section 1029.16 as applicable.
Along alternating tread devices and ships ladders, guards where the top rail also serves as a handrail shall have height not less than 30 inches (762 mm) and not more than 34 inches (864 mm), measured vertically from the leading edge of the device tread nosing.


----------



## JCraver (Mar 25, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> So you are saying that these structures would be under the IBC?



Nope.  I'm saying that under the I-codes, an RV does not qualify as a dwelling.  The end.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 25, 2019)

No, but the shade cover shown is a permitable structure.


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 26, 2019)

JCraver said:


> Nope.  I'm saying that under the I-codes, an RV does not qualify as a dwelling.  The end.



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 not
more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall
comply with the International Residential Code.

So if the RV's don't qualify as a dwelling in the IRC or in the IBC why wouldn't it be enforced in the IBC as non residential?
There are commercial buildings (restaurant, clubhouse, bath house, office) on this property.

At a completely different location I am inspecting today a stairway being built on a hill not connected to any building in a property that has in a golf course, horse farm, club house and a few dwellings that is being inspected under the IBC.

Tell me why the RV park would not be the same.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 26, 2019)

RV park is a "commercial" use isn't it? Inspect away!


----------



## JCraver (Mar 26, 2019)

I wouldn't permit/inspect the stairway either, unless it was a required means of travel between two things that are I-code regulated.  If it's a stair connecting two cart paths, that's not anything the IBC would have any jurisdiction over.

The RV's is pretty simple to me - if it has wheels, it's beyond the scope of any of the I-codes.  Therefore, anything attached to that which has wheels is beyond the scope too - so the decks, carports, etc. would be out of any I-code jurisdiction.  And were I an owner of one of those contraptions, that's what I'd beat you in court with - you have no jurisdiction if it's not a dwelling (IRC) or a place open to the public (IBC).

The other commercial structures in the RV park, that are open to public and/or tenant use (restaurant, clubhouse, bath house, office), would be covered by the IBC.  But stretching that to the RV's/accessories themselves doesn't work.

This is all just my opinion, and I'm not a lawyer.  I just think you'll have a hard time convincing a judge that a fifth-wheel camper or (even worse) a powered motor home is a dwelling subject to the I-codes.  And if there is a not a dwelling, then anything that is an accessory to the not-a-dwelling would not be covered under an I-code, either.


----------



## JCraver (Mar 26, 2019)

I don't have a problem (not really...) with your jurisdiction wanting to regulate these.  I just don't think stretching the I-codes to regulate them is the correct way to do it.  Stretching any code to fit any thing is bad governing, IMO.

We have a mobile home park here in town who wanted to be able to rent lots to transient workers with RV's (pipeline guys, etc.).  I couldn't cover it with the I-codes or the mobile home regs. we have, so we wrote an ordinance specifically for this use within our zoning code.  It covers the standard zoning stuff, and has provisions for using the RV temporarily as a dwelling - fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, etc.  You could do something similar.  I'll email you our ordinance if you want to see it, or I could even post it here - it's not very big.  The ordinance isn't even close to perfect, but it's better than stretching a code that doesn't apply.


----------

