# Commercial in residential accessory structure



## jar546 (Jul 26, 2013)

Zoning just allowed the demolition of an old detached garage and construction of a 20x24 building that would be an accessory structure to a residence.

So what's the problem?

The approval was to run a beauty salon out of it so now the contractor thinks that the IBC does not apply.

We say this is commercial for commercial use and the IBC and the ADA applies.

Opinions?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mark handler (Jul 26, 2013)

The occupancy is commercial

IBC applies and needs accessibility


----------



## mark handler (Jul 26, 2013)

ADASAD 2010

b) Commercial facilities located in private residences.(1)*When a commercial facility is located in a private residence, the portion of the residence used exclusively as a residence is not covered by this subpart, but that portion used exclusively in the operation of the commercial facility or that portion used both for the commercial facility and for residential purposes is covered by the new construction and alterations requirements of this subpart.(2)*The portion of the residence covered under paragraph (b)(1) of this section extends to those elements used to enter the commercial facility, including the homeowner's front sidewalk, if any, the door or entryway, and hallways; and those portions of the residence, interior or exterior, available to or used by employees or visitors of the commercial facility, including restrooms.


----------



## cda (Jul 26, 2013)

Does the town have a residential work ordinance??

Like for barber shop in home ???

What per centage of the building will be actual Beaty shop use???

And what is the rest of the building used for ?

Is it a 419???


----------



## jar546 (Jul 26, 2013)

Commercial in residential accessory structure

It is detached as stated and its sole purpose is business.  419 does not apply.  100% of the building is planned to be a beauty salon but since it is a detached structure from the dwelling unit, it does not matter what oercentage

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 26, 2013)

Although the structure is allowed by zoning ordinance it is NOT an accessory structure according to the building code.

2006/2009 IRC.  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.

A stand alone beauty shop does not meet the requirement of the IRC for an accessory structure.  And the IRC does not regulate consturction of buildings for commercial purposes.  The IBC does; therefore the structure/business must meet all the requirements for a commercial building including parking, Accessibility, and ICC/ANSI A117.1 requirements.

Uncle Bob


----------



## peach (Jul 26, 2013)

I agree with my dear Uncle... it's not an accessory use.


----------



## Architect1281 (Jul 27, 2013)

I splain it tis way to those who is clueless.

Zoning Code is Chinese

Building Codes is Russian

Definition in one is only in that language

In order to build a Zoning and Building Code compliant use you needs to know two languages


----------



## cboboggs (Jul 29, 2013)

Well said Uncle Bob.


----------



## north star (Jul 29, 2013)

*& + &*

Does the Zoning actually allow a Commercial building for that location,

since it is clearly not a Residential Accessory use structure now ?

Previous Zoning approval repealed / withdrawn !

*& + &*


----------



## cda (Jul 29, 2013)

Home based business

That's it , does the city have regulations on home based business ???


----------



## jar546 (Aug 10, 2013)

Still getting resistance on this one.  I think I got through to the owners but their relatives (connected) are causing the problem and getting them a little out of whack.

R2 zoning district.

Zoning hearing board approved a variance to place the structure on the lot.

Zoning hearing board approved the use as a beauty salon business.

It is a business whether or not it is an accessory structure.  I have to make a clear and defined separation between zoning and building.

It is new construction which includes accessibility and it is a business.  Yes it is an accessory structure for zoning but it is for a business so the IBC applies.  Show me where the IRC gives you ADA requirements for businesses.

DOJ/ADA clearly states accessibility applies too.  Why is this so difficult?


----------



## fatboy (Aug 11, 2013)

It is not an accessory structure to the residential use, this is a stand alone IBC structure sharing the same lot. Zoning may call it accessory, but it is still just another IBC building.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 11, 2013)

Alright then I will 'splain what we do here, which no doubt will engender a lot of criticism. First let me emphasise that I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ZONING CODE AND BUILDING CODE.

Nevertheless, we allow Home Occupations within certain parameters.  I don't know that our specific parameters are germane to this discussion, but just so you know we have benchmarks that must be met in order to be permitted to have a Home Occupation.

So our POLICY, is to review building permit applications under the IRC and Fire Code as residential.

Why? Because the scope of the commercial use is tiny. Tiny tiny. Probably less hazardous than having your annual family reunion in the same location. If building new, yes accessible parking and entrance. If new bathroom then yes Accessible. But otherwise (assuming they are not manufacturing fireworks etc etc) we consider it on a residential scale.

Fire away, but that is how we do it here.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 12, 2013)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Alright then I will 'splain what we do here, which no doubt will engender a lot of criticism. First let me emphasise that I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ZONING CODE AND BUILDING CODE.Nevertheless, we allow Home Occupations within certain parameters.  I don't know that our specific parameters are germane to this discussion, but just so you know we have benchmarks that must be met in order to be permitted to have a Home Occupation.
> 
> So our POLICY, is to review building permit applications under the IRC and Fire Code as residential.
> 
> ...


I would love to see what part of the MA building code regulates this and if the adopted state code is how it is enforced.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 12, 2013)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> A stand alone beauty shop does not meet the requirement of the IRC for an accessory structure
> 
> Uncle Bob


Plain and Simple.

It is a Commercial Occupancy in a residential zone (lot)

It maybe a converted garage but the occupancy makes it commercial, under the IBC


----------



## tmurray (Aug 12, 2013)

Sometimes when things like this happen I will hand someone the building code and ask them to show me where it says that their business constitutes a residential occupancy. I then explain it's the same difference between getting your car registered and then the safety inspection. Just because you register your car with the province doesn't mean it will pass the safety inspection.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 12, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I would love to see what part of the MA building code regulates this and if the adopted state code is how it is enforced.


You could look into that, sure.Regarding the adopted State Code being enforced, there are lots of provisions in the adopted codes that are not strictly enforced. Sometimes we just do what we can keeping in mind "safety first". If we can pass the safety test, every thing else is secondary. Unless you live in a 100% utopia. Most of us don't.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 12, 2013)

Yankee said:
			
		

> You could look into that, sure.Regarding the adopted State Code being enforced, there are lots of provisions in the adopted codes that are not strictly enforced. Sometimes we just do what we can keeping in mind "safety first". If we can pass the safety test, every thing else is secondary. Unless you live in a 100% utopia. Most of us don't.


This is not the first time we have had a similar discussion on this forum.  What is adopted is adopted and we have no legal authority to vary from it.  Since I do expert witness on construction defect and injury claims I clearly see that we have to do what is right and what is adopted regardless of how unpopular it may be.  I ask myself one question:  "Can I defend myself in a court of law based on what I am approving?"  If you guys in your area want to be rogue inspectors and vary from the adopted codes then that is your prerogative but it is not mine.  We all make mistakes and know the codes are not perfect but we never take it upon ourselves to intentionally not enforce a state law.  That would be arbitrary and capricious which in itself is breaking the law.  We do the bests we can with what we have and there is an appeals board if need be.

I never want to be the guy that the contractors use as an excuse when working in other towns and make comments like:  "I built one just like this in abc town and they approved it" or "How come they did not make us do that in abc town?" or "The code official from abc town always approves it and you are the first one to tell me its wrong."  Yeah no one wants to be that guy when everyone else is trying their best to be fair, consistent and follow the adopted laws.  You don't like the adopted state laws?  Talk to your state legislators.

I'll stop here because I feel myself going on a tangent with this one and don't want to **** anyone off.

OK, rant over.


----------



## David Henderson (Aug 19, 2013)

Planning and Zoning may ok thhe use but cannot dictate what code it falls under, beyond their Authority.


----------

