# Live/Work Unit



## Underdog (Jul 26, 2011)

I'm curious on how jurisdictions are applying Section 419 of the IBC to existing homes that want to open a home occupation.

I am curious about the following...

1. How are you defining office space?  Are you including all B occupancies or stuff that is trully an office?  Do you have a definition for office?

2. How are you enforcing this?  To its full extent?  For example, lets say you have someone who decides to cut hair in their home.  They decide to use the spare bedroom for this, which is 12.37% of the total square footage of the house.  Are you requiring them to reclassify their house as an R-2 structure and sprinkler the building?  And what about setbacks? Are you requiring them to fire-rate walls that are less than 10 feet from the property line?

3. Have any of you created a separte policy for 'home occupations' as opposed to 'live/work units'?

4. Does anyone know if this will stay in the code for 2012?  It seems to limit what people can do as home occupations quite a bit.

Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## fatboy (Jul 26, 2011)

Welcome Underdog, (aren't we all?) to the forum, just wanted to say hello. I did make some amendments to this section, but I will have to post back tomorrow.


----------



## cda (Jul 26, 2011)

welcome

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5501-R-2


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 27, 2011)

1. How are you defining office space? Are you including all B occupancies or stuff that is trully an office? Do you have a definition for office? You know an office when you see it. Does it matter if it is in a commercial building or a house 

2. How are you enforcing this? To its full extent? For example, lets say you have someone who decides to cut hair in their home. They decide to use the spare bedroom for this, which is 12.37% of the total square footage of the house. Are you requiring them to reclassify their house as an R-2 structure and sprinkler the building? No it is still a one or two family dwelling not an R-2. You are only required to install a 13D system if sprinklering is required for new one and two family homes in your jurisdiction...

And what about setbacks? Are you requiring them to fire-rate walls that are less than 10 feet from the property line? No it is still an IRC dwelling 

3. Have any of you created a separte policy for 'home occupations' as opposed to 'live/work units'? No

4. Does anyone know if this will stay in the code for 2012? Have no idea It seems to limit what people can do as home occupations quite a bit.


----------



## High Desert (Jul 27, 2011)

Where are you getting the term "office space?" I don't believe they are limited to B occupancies. The term use in 419 is "nonresidential?" You could have a small M occupancy if you had 5 or fewer workers.

Live/Work units are in both the IBC and IRC. If designed to the IBC a 13R system is required and if to the IRC, a 13D system. This allows jurisdictions that don't adopt both the IBC and IRC to be able to have an avenue for them to be built.

And yes, they will still be in the 2012 IRC and IBC.


----------



## Underdog (Jul 27, 2011)

more questions



			
				High Desert said:
			
		

> Where are you getting the term "office space?" I don't believe they are limited to B occupancies. The term use in 419 is "nonresidential?" You could have a small M occupancy if you had 5 or fewer workers.


The term 'office' is used in the exception to 419.1.  Since the requirement for a sprinkler system hinges on how that term is interpreted this is kind of a big issue.  Was it the intent of ICC to mean all B occuapncies?  Or do they have some other intent like ... office: an office space that is used only by those living in the home.  Depending upon how you interpret it, I could make it as restrictive as home use only or I could allow people to have hair salons.



			
				High Desert said:
			
		

> Live/Work units are in both the IBC and IRC. If designed to the IBC a 13R system is required and if to the IRC, a 13D system. This allows jurisdictions that don't adopt both the IBC and IRC to be able to have an avenue for them to be built.


Ok I just re-read through the exception to R101.2 of the IRC with what you had written in mind.  Let me see if I have this right.

I can have a live live/work unit built to the IRC per the exception to R101.2.  It stays an R-3 structure but has to meet the requirements of IBC 419.5 for fire sprinklers but not any of the other sections of 419.

But if I build it according to the IBC I have to meet all requirements of 419.  Meaning it is an R-2 structure and has a lot more requirements.

Now I have a new question about the first sentence in the exception to R101.2... Live/work units complying with the requirements of section 419 of the International Building Code shall be permitted to be built as one- and two-family dwelling units or townhouse.

If you are complying with section 419 (I assume that would mean all of 419) how can you be one- and two-family dwelling unit, because 419 requires that the structure is classified as an R-2? The sentence seems to be in conflict with itself.

My real issue lies here.  In the past through our zoning code we have allowed home occupations of up to 30% of the homes area.  And we have allowed most any type of business that would fit into the residential characteristic.  With 419 obviously that all changes.

For example... I have a home owner who wants to open a business in her home.  She is doing accounting and her office is under 10% of the floor area.  No big deal.  I tell her that is totally allowed by 419 with no changes.  I bless her venture and tell her to have a good day.

Her neighbor comes in and wants to cut hair in her spare bedroom.  Well cutting hair is not an office.  An office has a desk and papers, not scissors and brooms and conditioner and shampoo.  I tell her she needs to add sprinklers to her home for this small business. She says, "What about my neighbor? You let her do it."  I explain it to her and she tells me it is stupid and then goes and talks to the city manager.

The other neighbor of the accountant decides that she wants to sell yarn out of her spare room.  Again less that 10%.  Well this is not an office either.  It is a retail store - M occupancy.  She needs to add sprinklers to her house as well. She says, "What about my neighbor? You let her do it."  I then tell her it is much more dangerous to sell yarn than to do someone's taxes.  She also goes and visits the city manager.

Not so sure this section 419 is 'working as intended'.  Please let me know how your jurisdiction is dealing with this.


----------



## High Desert (Jul 27, 2011)

Yes, the exception does say "office" which limits them being home occupations. If the use is not office, and some other use like a small retail shop, then it must comply with all of 419 even if it's less than 10% of the area.

If you use the IRC the code actually says:

"Live/work units complying with the requirements of Section 419 of the International Building Code shall be permitted to be built as one- and two-family dwellings or townhouses. Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the International Building Code when constructed under the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall conform to Section 903.3.1.3 of the International Building Code."

So the entire structure still has to comply with all of Section 419 but can be built to the construction standards of the IRC and be classified as an as a one-and-two family-dwelling or townhouse and not an R-2.

And you're right, it is not working as intended. Let me throw this one at you....a small cafe with with one cook, one manager and two servers. A total of four workers is under the maximum threshold of 5 nonresidential workers or employees. I think someone could spin that one pretty easily.

There was a code change submittal in Baltimore ICC hearings that tried to fix this section but didn't pass. There will probably be some more code changes submitted for the next cycle.


----------



## ewenme (Jul 27, 2011)

I think you are mistaken about the "maximum threshold of 5 workers or employees". Section 419.1.1 Limitations, #4, says: "Not more than five nonresidential workers or employees are allowed to occupy the nonresidential area *at any one time."* That means you could have 15 employees working three shifts as long as only five were in the area at any given time. Sounds like an opportunity for a real sweatshop operation made legal by the building code.  Except that our City Zoning has preempted the building code by defining home occupations and the zones in which they can occur.


----------



## High Desert (Jul 27, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> I think you are mistaken about the "maximum threshold of 5 workers or employees". Section 419.1.1 Limitations, #4, says: "Not more than five nonresidential workers or employees are allowed to occupy the nonresidential area *at any one time."* That means you could have 15 employees working three shifts as long as only five were in the area at any given time. Sounds like an opportunity for a real sweatshop operation made legal by the building code.  Except that our City Zoning has preempted the building code by defining home occupations and the zones in which they can occur.


You are absolutely right about the 5 employees. Section 419 needs to be tightened up a little, don't you think?


----------



## brudgers (Jul 27, 2011)

High Desert said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right about the 5 employees. Section 419 needs to be tightened up a little, don't you think?


No. It is a zoning and or occupational license issue. Five employees at any one time creates the same lifesafety issues as five employees continuously - and that's what the code is meant to deal with.


----------



## Mac (Jul 28, 2011)

I'd begin with a local zoning review, and if approved, proceed using the NYS Res Code appendix J102.5 "Home Occupations". Lots of people work from & at home.


----------

