# 2009 IRC definition of "Structure" - looking for Commentary edition note



## Hausdezign (Feb 21, 2014)

I've got the commentary edition for the 2006 IRC and 2009 IBC which defines a "Structure" as "That which is built or constructed". The commentary note adds: "This definition is intentionally broad so as to include within its scope - and therefore the scope of the code (see Section R101.2) - everything that is built as an improvement to real property." I would presume a driveway would be considered a "structure" under this definition. Does anyone know if the 2009 IRC has the same commentary? Many thanks - any help is very much appreciated!


----------



## cda (Feb 21, 2014)

BUILDING. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.

What is your real question??

Is a canopy a structure??


----------



## fatboy (Feb 21, 2014)

R105.2 Work exempt from permit. Permits shall not be

required for the following. 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.

Building:

5. Sidewalks and driveways.

Unless locally amended, which unfortunately we have a requirement for flatwork permits..........


----------



## mark handler (Feb 21, 2014)

A driveway would NOT be considered a "structure" under the IBC


----------



## cda (Feb 21, 2014)

Also when not defined in I code hit the dictionary


----------



## ICE (Feb 21, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> A driveway would NOT be considered a "structure" under the IBC


Would a basketball hoop make a difference?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 21, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Would a basketball hoop make a difference?


To the end user,  yes.


----------



## Hausdezign (Feb 21, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Would a basketball hoop make a difference?


Thanks ICE - unfortunately the hoop wouldn't make a whole lot of difference for my Boston Celtics this year.


----------



## steveray (Feb 21, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Would a basketball hoop make a difference?


Exempt....

8. Swings and other playground equipment.


----------



## Hausdezign (Feb 21, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> A driveway would NOT be considered a "structure" under the IBC


Thanks Mark - my confusion stems from the 2009 IBC - Commentary edition where the definition of "Structure" appears to be expanded by the commentary note - "everything that is built as an improvement to real property". My initial quandry was my interpretation of 2009 IRC Section R110 - "Certificate of Occupancy" and in particular Section R110.5 - "Revocation" for a single family home.  I'm aware of the "exception" noted under the 2009 IRC Section R105.2.5 which specifically excludes driveways from requiring a permit. But in the hypothetical case where a driveway is perhaps constructed too narrow to meet town standards (and perhaps restrict fire truck access), or of a impervious nature where an pervious surface was required due to a town's max. impermeable lot coverage formula, can the C.O. be revoked? While the new home may meet all life safety and IRC building codes, Section R110.5 says that the C.O. can be revoked if it's "determined that the building or structure (structure being the operative word here) or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation (i.e. town ordinance/regulation) or any of the provisions of this code." It would appear so if the definition of "Structure" under the IRC can be interpreted as including a driveway. I don't have the "commentary" edition of the 2009 IRC to see if the definition of "Structure" is similarly defined as in the 2009 IBC, but often the definitions are similar if not identical.


----------



## steveray (Feb 21, 2014)

5. Sidewalks and driveways.

Also exempt in Chapter 1.....

If the CO was issued in error related to a non-code item....I would be very hesitant to revoke it...Was there zoning signoff prior to CO?

110.1 Gives you language that a CO does not give "approval" to a violation.....

R110.1 Use and occupancy.

No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.

CT has rewritten most of this Chapter


----------



## rogerpa (Feb 21, 2014)

Commentary is NOT code.


----------



## cda (Feb 21, 2014)

Hausdezign said:
			
		

> Thanks ICE - unfortunately the hoop wouldn't make a whole lot of difference for my Boston Celtics this year.


If they knew what it was there for !!!


----------



## cda (Feb 21, 2014)

Seems like this is the answer to your question

""""determined that the building or structure (structure being the operative word here) or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation""

If fire code or engineering requires a certain design of the driveway and not there,

Building is in violation of Another Code.


----------



## Frank (Feb 21, 2014)

For the scoping of what is covered by the code in your jurisdiction you need to go to the adopting legislation, ordinance, or regulations.  The scoping provisions are almost always changed in adoption due to varying state and local laws.  Likely a waste of time to even look at the model code language.


----------



## Hausdezign (Feb 21, 2014)

Thanks CDA - that's the conclusion I've come to as well.  ($8 for the small draft beers at the Garden wouldn't hurt so bad if at least they were headed for the playoffs!)


----------



## Hausdezign (Feb 21, 2014)

Excellent point rogerpa - thanks for the post.


----------

