# Dwelling Unit vs. Accessory structure



## righter101 (Jul 11, 2011)

Hello all, below is a link to a thread I started last winter.  I appreciate all the feedback that was received.

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?3454-Un-Heated-residential-structure

The issue that comes up, especially in our jurisdiction, is when someone is limited to a single dwelling on a parcel, they build a "bunkhouse", which, without a kitchen, doesn't meet the requirements of a dwelling, thus in compliance with zoning.

The space serves to allow for sleeping and living, just not cooking.

My previous post addressed if heat would then be required.  The letter of the code indicates that it wouldn't be required.  Opinions varied.

The next place I am finding this is R612.2, which states "In dwelling units...." and goes on to detail the requirements if operable windows are less than 24" above the floor and more than 6 feet above grade, the lower portion needs a guard or to be non operable.

I guess my question is this, is it reasonable, or the intent of the code to limit a life safety requirement such as this exclusively to "dwelling units", or would it be acceptable to apply to a bunkhouse, or a living/studio type use above a garage or workshop.

This brings up other questions about the definitions and interpetation of "dwelling unit".  An example would be pod construction where a kitchen/living area is a separate building from the "master suite" and a separate "bedroom", communicating only with nearby paths....

We are a rural county and encounter this a lot more than an urban area would.

Thoughts.

For the code enforcement folks out there, inspectors, plans examiners, bo's, have you interpreted the dwelling unit to encompass separate buildings??

for the other side of the table folks, architects, builders, Brugers, do you see the application of this rule to other than the primairy residence as being valid.

Why or why not.

thanks for the feedback on this


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 11, 2011)

> The issue that comes up, especially in our jurisdiction, is when someone is limited to a single dwelling on a parcel, they build a "bunkhouse", which, without a kitchen, doesn't meet the requirements of a dwelling, thus in compliance with zoning.


I think your problem is the definitions in your zoning code. Define accessory in that code for what is allowed on a piece of property. If you want to allow "bunkhouses" (sleeping units) then consider them part of the dwelling unit and require them to meet the code for a dwelling unit.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 11, 2011)

Yes to the life safety items even if they don't fit the definition of a "dwelling". If there is living space, be it recreation room or sleeping rooms, must meet life safety codes.


----------



## Alias (Jul 11, 2011)

deleted deleted


----------



## righter101 (Jul 11, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Yes to the life safety items even if they don't fit the definition of a "dwelling". If there is living space, be it recreation room or sleeping rooms, must meet life safety codes.


Yankee, I tend to agree, I am just trying to reconcile the letter of the code, specific to "dwelling units", to the requirements.

thanks for the input


----------



## mark handler (Jul 11, 2011)

Yankee, You hit it


----------



## TimNY (Jul 11, 2011)

Without permanent provisions for cooking, it cannot be considered a dwelling unit.

I run into the same thing, and it is primarily a zoning issue.  Our zoning code does not permit sleeping or cooking in accy structures.  I show up for an inspection, there is a bed in there.  They are told to remove the bed, I reinspect.  Neither you nor I can control what people will do.

I believe I heard this said here first: "it has to be compliant when I leave".  I have repeated that to many homeowners.

So, my advice is the permit application was not for a dwelling unit, was not reviewed as a dwelling unit, and cannot be inspected as if it were a dwelling unit.. no matter what we think will happen.

Require a smoke alarm as a "space that may be used for sleeping" and move on.

ps- there is no requirement for rooms to be connected by conditioned space.  In fact, hallways are not required to be conditioned.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 11, 2011)

Habital Accessory- sleeping rooms

must meet life safety codes.


----------



## TimNY (Jul 11, 2011)

If sleeping is a permitted use, then 310.1 applies because it is applicable to "sleeping rooms"; similar with smoke alarms.

I say if it can be used for sleeping, the codes specific to sleeping rooms apply.  If that's what we mean by "life safety codes", then I agree!

R612.2 is applicable to dwelling units, this is not a dwelling unit.  It is life safety, but is not applicable-- as much as I do think it should be a requirement.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 11, 2011)

Under the building code, a dwelling is a building by definition [iBC 202], therefore multiple buildings cannot be part of a single dwelling.

Of course, zoning can define define dwellings differently (and you could even amend your local building code with a definition of your choosing).

However, It would seem to me that since a free-standing bunkhouse is not a dwelling it would not fall under the IRC. This would put it into Group R because it is used for sleeping and is not an institutional occupancy. Looks like a dormitory and thus R2 to me.

That's NFPA 13R land and probably enough to discourage the practice in the vast majority of cases.

Of course an argument might be made that the whole shooting match gets classified as R3 under the congregate living facilities exception - but I haven't dug in to it deep enough to see how far you can get.


----------



## TimNY (Jul 11, 2011)

Agreed brudgers, they do need to be connected to meet the definition of a dwelling.  How they are connected is open to interpretation.

IRC covers residences and their accessory structures; would a detached building with sleeping not be considered an accessory structure?

My question is what is meant by bunkhouse?  For guests?  For rent? What about a pool house?


----------



## Yankee (Jul 12, 2011)

Any building on a parcel with a dwelling is an accessory structure to that dwelling (unless otherwise approved such as a parcel with a dwelling and an approved commercial building) and should be reviewed based on its use. If it is listed as "storage" building and when you get there it has couches and a big screen tv, it is a living space and you review it based on that (it must have egress elements and smoke/co alarms etc).


----------



## brudgers (Jul 12, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Any building on a parcel with a dwelling is an accessory structure to that dwelling (unless otherwise approved such as a parcel with a dwelling and an approved commercial building) and should be reviewed based on its use. If it is listed as "storage" building and when you get there it has couches and a big screen tv, it is a living space and you review it based on that (it must have egress elements and smoke/co alarms etc).


That's a zoning definition so you can't extrapolate it to building code requirements.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 12, 2011)

Below is Thomas Edisions house in Ft Myers Fl. Notice the open areas between the 2 structures. One is the main house with the kitchen and master suite and the other the childrens rooms. Different era


----------



## Frank (Jul 12, 2011)

2009 IRC

"BUILDING. Building shall mean any one- and two-family dwelling or portion thereof, including townhouses, that is used, or designed or intended to be used for human habitation, for living, sleeping, cooking or eating purposes, or any combination thereof, and shall include accessory structures thereto."

"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.

DWELLING UNIT. A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. "

Therefore the bunkhouse bedrooms or a detached kitchen can be part of the dwelling unit as long as they operate as a single unit.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 12, 2011)

Why, thank you Frank!


----------



## brudgers (Jul 12, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> 2009 IRC"BUILDING. Building shall mean any one- and two-family dwelling or portion thereof, including townhouses, that is used, or designed or intended to be used for human habitation, for living, sleeping, cooking or eating purposes, or any combination thereof, and shall include accessory structures thereto."


ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure not greater than 3,000 square feet in floor area, and not over two stories in height, the use of which is customarily *accessory to and incidental to* that of the dwelling(s) and which is located on the same lot.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 12, 2011)

Is that it?

Well....................................? (Judge Smails, Caddy Shack)

pc1


----------



## righter101 (Jul 13, 2011)

So if it is a detached office, accessory to a SFR, would they have to heat it?

I guess it depends on the definition of thereto


----------



## Architect1281 (Jul 13, 2011)

SCOPE of 1 & 2 Family Dwelling Code R101.2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the....and their accessory structures

SO code applies.. The for some ungodly reason the window sill criteria in in chapter 6 AND R601.1 Application. The provisions of this chapter shall control the design and construction of all walls and partitions for

all buildings. ... does not say anything about use of space but is scoped in chapter to walls.......R612.1 General. This section prescribes performance and construction requirements for exterior window and door

installed in wall. so glass holes in walls must comply ... IMHO even if in an uninhabited garage loft storage area .... so you can get there from here


----------



## righter101 (Jul 13, 2011)

Thank you.  I was trying to get there and you helped me.  I appreciate it.

Although I am a code official, I do share Brugers cynicism towards the ICC and the evolution of the codes.

I have begun a new challenge to have our state (Washington) adopt the codes every other cycle, effectively a 6 year adoption instead of every 3.  I am just working on my first presentation to the WABO.  I realistically won't affect change for the 2012, but I have my sights set on going from the 2012 to the 2018.

Thanks again to everyone for the comments and feedback.  I really appreciate this forum.  The humor and POV's are great and help give fresh perspective to situations.


----------



## Architect1281 (Jul 14, 2011)

I'm with you on that even a 5 year cycle would not be terrible

but as the attempted massive code concensus merger proved even NF PA means National Firecode Publication Association

SELL SELL SELL  and even ICC is going the NFPA More codes means More books to sell mantra -/ Bleacher code / green code / residence log code / and

now cause they're so darn complex POOL CODES are a comming.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 14, 2011)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> SCOPE of 1 & 2 Family Dwelling Code R101.2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the....and their accessory structuresSO code applies.. The for some ungodly reason the window sill criteria in in chapter 6 AND R601.1 Application. The provisions of this chapter shall control the design and construction of all walls and partitions for
> 
> all buildings. ... does not say anything about use of space but is scoped in chapter to walls.......R612.1 General. This section prescribes performance and construction requirements for exterior window and door
> 
> installed in wall. so glass holes in walls must comply ... IMHO even if in an uninhabited garage loft storage area .... so you can get there from here


A bunkhouse is not an accessory structure because it houses a primary use not an incidental one.

It is not a dwelling because it does not contain all the necessary facilities for a dwelling (which is how it gets past zoning).

Therefore it falls under IBC not IRC.

Under IBC it is an R occupancy because it is used for sleeping.

Sprinklers required.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 14, 2011)

It is used for bunking, not sleeping. No sprinklers required.


----------



## righter101 (Jul 14, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> A bunkhouse is not an accessory structure because it houses a primary use not an incidental one.It is not a dwelling because it does not contain all the necessary facilities for a dwelling (which is how it gets past zoning).
> 
> Therefore it falls under IBC not IRC.
> 
> ...


Very interesting take Brugers.  I had taken a bunk house to be an accessory use, but now I am questioning it.  The issue I may be up against is the historic acceptance in our jurisdiction of bunkhouses as accessory to a SFR.  I would be curious to see the debate on this forum on whether or not a bunkhouse is accessory to a residential, if it is customarily accessory to and inceidental to or not.

My head is spinning with this stuff.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 14, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Very interesting take Brugers.  I had taken a bunk house to be an accessory use, but now I am questioning it.  The issue I may be up against is the historic acceptance in our jurisdiction of bunkhouses as accessory to a SFR.  I would be curious to see the debate on this forum on whether or not a bunkhouse is accessory to a residential, if it is customarily accessory to and inceidental to or not.My head is spinning with this stuff.


You have conflated two terms: "Residential" and "Dwelling."

A bunkhouse is a residential use under IBC.

A bunkhouse is not a dwelling, and therefore does not fall under IRC.

It particularly does not fall under IRC because the definition of a dwelling is a single building and accessory structures and a bunkhouse is not an accessory structure because it contains a primary use.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 14, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> It is used for bunking, not sleeping. No sprinklers required.


Debunking your argument, that's complete bunk.


----------



## righter101 (Jul 14, 2011)

I thought you ordered a new code book and were going to update your tag line to 2009 codes...

I think a good case can be made for arbitrary, selective enforcement and variable interpretations.....


----------



## Yankee (Jul 14, 2011)

All kidding aside, the bunkhouse is an accessory building to the dwelling. The fact that it is "bunked in" does not make it a primary use building. A bunkhouse is an accessory building and use to the primary dwelling.

To follow up the question, I do not believe it would be required to have heating, or lights for that matter.

Now reverse the requirements if the use is permanent housing (as opposed to "by choice" housing) such as a true bunk house on a working farm. Let the application document the nature of the use and leave it at that.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 14, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> All kidding aside, the bunkhouse is an accessory building to the dwelling. The fact that it is "bunked in" does not make it a primary use building. A bunkhouse is an accessory building and use to the primary dwelling.To follow up the question, I do not believe it would be required to have heating, or lights for that matter.
> 
> Now reverse the requirements if the use is permanent housing (as opposed to "by choice" housing) such as a true bunk house on a working farm. Let the application document the nature of the use and leave it at that.


If you are going to treat it as accessory where do you draw the line?

You can sleep a lot of people in 3000 s.f.

And if my bunkhouse just happens to be divided up into fifteen 200 square foot "bunkspaces" each with it's own bath, two queen beds, a minibar, and cable TV...is it still accessory?


----------



## brudgers (Jul 14, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> I thought you ordered a new code book and were going to update your tag line to 2009 codes...I think a good case can be made for arbitrary, selective enforcement and variable interpretations.....


I didn't buy a 2009 IRC.


----------

