# Dwelling/Garage Separation?



## Buelligan (Sep 14, 2011)

Ok I have a good one! The code section is listed as Dwelling/Garage separation but the chart says _all habitable rooms_. What we have is a home owner with a _large detached garage_ that has a large _habitable_ second floor. By local ordinance this CANNOT be a dwelling, so he is calling it an entertainment area for his pool. The area has a kitchenette, a bathroom, a room with a closet and a large living room type area. His arguement is that since the code section clearly states DWELLING/Garage seperation and this can't be a dwelling it doesn't apply. But we see the chart says the separation is from all habitable rooms and we are requiring that the entire garage be drywalled! Has anyone else come across this issue?


----------



## steveray (Sep 14, 2011)

(Amd)  R309.2  Separation required:  Garages attached side by side to residences shall be separated from the residence and its attic area by means of a minimum 5/8-inch type X gypsum board applied to the garage side.  Garages beneath habitable rooms, closets, bathrooms, toilet rooms, halls or utility spaces in residences shall be separated from adjacent interior spaces by a minimum 5/8-inch type X gypsum board applied to the garage side of all walls, ceilings and combustible structural supports.  Gypsum board joints shall be finished in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements.

That is our amendment...we take it to mean from all other spaces.....

	Exception: Wood structural members of the minimum dimensions specified in Section 	602.4 of the 2003 International Building Code for Type IV construction shall be 	acceptable without further protection.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 14, 2011)

> The area has a kitchenette, a bathroom, a room with a closet and a large living room type area


HABITABLE SPACE. A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces .

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.

Sounds like a dwelling unit to me


----------



## brudgers (Sep 14, 2011)

It's zoning code that does not allow it's classification as a dwelling.

  The building code classifies it as a dwelling.


----------



## cboboggs (Sep 14, 2011)

Have to agree with brudgers on this one. Separation required by building code.


----------



## Rio (Sep 14, 2011)

Brudger called it.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 14, 2011)

cboboggs said:
			
		

> Have to agree with brudgers on this one. Separation required by building code.


I too, agree with brudgers on this one.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 15, 2011)

Just label it as storage.  Problem solved.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 15, 2011)

Buelligan said:
			
		

> Ok I have a good one! The code section is listed as Dwelling/Garage separation but the chart says _all habitable rooms_. What we have is a home owner with a _large detached garage_ that has a large _habitable_ second floor. By local ordinance this CANNOT be a dwelling, so he is calling it an entertainment area for his pool. The area has a kitchenette, a bathroom, a room with a closet and a large living room type area. His arguement is that since the code section clearly states DWELLING/Garage seperation and this can't be a dwelling it doesn't apply. But we see the chart says the separation is from all habitable rooms and we are requiring that the entire garage be drywalled! Has anyone else come across this issue?


You can always refer back to R102.1, if there is a conflict (real or apparent) in the language of the code, the most restricitve would apply.  In this case, the table/chart of 302.5 the garage is required to be separated from "all habitable rooms above".


----------



## Yankee (Sep 16, 2011)

I enforce the "all habitable rooms" above, not only dwellings above.


----------



## Buelligan (Sep 21, 2011)

UPDATE! more opinions needed, thanks

UPDATE!

Ok so I went out to look at this issue. Below is an image of the structure in question. The GARAGE area is beside the habitable area. The space below is labeled and intended for storage/workshop area ONLY. NO VEHICLES, despite the garage door. Would you accept this as is or would you still require a drywall separation? The exterior walls are steel construction. Also would the sheet metal on the exterior (26 ga.) be equivilant to drywall? There is a small area (gable) of garage that shares common wall with the habitable area that has this on the garage side. Thanks!







PS. The owner states that since the "chart" says residence that the side by side separation does not apply since this is only a "habitable" area! Any thoughts?


----------



## Sifu (Sep 21, 2011)

My two cents is that the separation would be required between the space above whether he says the space below is for a vehicle or not and the space above is for sleeping or not.  Since the area above could easily be used as a sleeping area and the space below could easily be used to park a vehicle the wise move here is to separate those spaces.  Cover yourself.  This "dwelling" probably shouldn't be permitted anyway.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 21, 2011)

Separation.  Looks like a firehouse or ambulance garage to me.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 21, 2011)

Remove the roll up doors and allow it as unprotected, leave the doors and protect it.

Also require CM/ SM detectors


----------



## brudgers (Sep 21, 2011)

If the plans say it ain't a garage, it ain't a garage.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 21, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If the plans say it ain't a garage, it ain't a garage.


No lie there


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2011)

> Also would the sheet metal on the exterior (26 ga.) be equivilant to drywall?


No



> If the plans say it ain't a garage, it ain't a garage


Just change the plans and call all the rooms storage.



> intended for storage/workshop area


Work on his lawnmower, motorcycle, car, chainsaw, refinish furniture they all fit.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 21, 2011)

We had the "label game" debate on a previous thread.

This appears to be a garage....

For that matter, lets just call it a piece of art, metal sculpture and not require a permit....


----------



## righter101 (Sep 21, 2011)

Mark makes a good point.

Permanent bollard restricting vehicle entry.

A room with a refrigerator, counter top, sink, dishwasher, all installed and working, can not simply be labeled as "storage" or "mechanical" or "not a kitchen", and have it classified as such.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 22, 2011)

So I don't quite understand.  The structure is already built and now the owner is looking to submit plans for a permit?  What building code and year?  Local amendments?

I presume there is a primary residence on the property and that they built this structure without a permit.  If they had applied for a permit to build this structure would the zoning code have allowed a second residence?  If not then does the Building Official take notice of that fact and kick it over to the IBC as a multi occupant structure as a second single family residence is not allowed?

What I see for purposes of the IRC is a single family residence with attached garage.  Requiring a separation between the workshop and the residence under the IRC is questionable.  Clearly there must be a separation between the garage and the two floors and attic space.


----------



## steveray (Sep 22, 2011)

"For that matter, lets just call it a piece of art, metal sculpture and not require a permit.... "

This is really gonna hurt the budget, but boy will I finally get some free time!


----------



## Buelligan (Sep 22, 2011)

Ok I will try to clarify. The structure was permited as a detached garage with a 2 story unfinished storage area. This is a seperate structure from the primary residence. Upon inspection it was found that the second story had been finished without an amendment to the permit for such. So he was required to submit a renovation permit to include the finished area. The finished area is labeled and proposed as a pool house/entertainment area. A final inspection was done and the inspector required that the lower floor be treated as a garage and must be separated. The owner does not wish to drywall the area at this time. So we are trying to determine if seperation is still the intent of the IRC in this case. We need to cover all bases in case this becomes a bigger issue. Below is a picture from inside the garage to show the 26 ga metal and determine if it meets the equivilant for drywall. Someone stated it does not, any other thoughts? Thank you all for your input. I will also be asking ICC for an interpretation.


----------



## steveray (Sep 22, 2011)

I don't think there is equivalency provisions in the IRC(mine at least), unless through a modification or appeal to AHJ...but then it is their butt on the line.....


----------



## Sifu (Sep 22, 2011)

Ignoring all the stated questions about how and why this building came to be in the first place I still say in matters of life safety I would err on the side of caution.  Requiring separation would seem to be minor inconvenience given the scope of the project shown in the picture.  Five people died in an RV nearby, the theory now is from CO poisoning, the kicker is that the generator may not have even been in the same RV, which demonstrates the danger we are all aware of.  Ask yourself this:  if the guy is too stubborn to see the validity of such a minor safety precaution as drywall/membrane separation, will he also be too stubborn to admit that his gas powered equipment or running vehicle could potentially kill someone in his own family?  Then would he be too stubborn to admit that it was his decision to not install it over your objections when he is sitting on the witness stand?  Don't protect this guy from himself if you don't want to, protect yourself from this guy, protect the unwitting occupants of the rooms above from this guy.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 22, 2011)

Does it meet the energy code?


----------



## globe trekker (Sep 22, 2011)

I would have to agree with the others on this and have the drywall separation

required.    Also, have the AHJ legal counsel review it for authority to actually

require the enforcement under Section R309.2.

Going back and changing the "plans labeling of the spaces" game should

not ( IMO ), be allowed.     The bell has already been rung and the structure

has already been built.

.


----------



## ICE (Sep 25, 2011)

The owner has given you his answer.  Obviously, you are only going to get what he is willing to give.


----------



## karmann33 (Sep 27, 2011)

Several others have already stated that the separartion is required and that would be the requirement in our jurisdiction. I'm glad that there was a picture with this post. I would also have to wonder if this luxury garage isn't being used in a commercial application as it looks more like a business is being ran out of it rather than storing personel belongings.


----------



## Yankee (Oct 17, 2011)

Separate. Require egress not thru garage, and eero's.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Oct 18, 2011)

Buelligan said:
			
		

> Has anyone else come across this issue?


All the time.  We always say, it doesn't matter one iota how Planning/Zoning defines it.  What you have is an intent in the code to separate living/sleeping areas from storage occupancies in order to protect life safety.  Separate it.  We make them drywall a garage if they are adjacent to a habitable living space...no matter what they call it, or whether it is above or besides.  We have also amended our definitions section to help clarify what we consider habitable space and a sleeping room.


----------



## Yankee (Oct 18, 2011)

'ell, I've fallen asleep on the toilet, that doesn't make it a bedroom . . .


----------

