• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

IRC Accessory Structure Proposed Interpretation 23-12

I agree with big mac.

And size restriction per IRC and zoning size restrictions should both apply individually if need be.
 
IMO, the floor area limits should be set by the structural limitations of the prescriptive methods within the IRC.

Of which there are none.

Any sort of arbitrary limit on accessory structures is scope creep of the sort which makes the I-codes SFL (So effing Lousy).

Then again, I don't think an ICC committee ever passed up the chance to make the code worse through unwarranted additional complexity based on personal agendas.
 
brudgers said:
IMO, the floor area limits should be set by the structural limitations of the prescriptive methods within the IRC. Of which there are none.

Any sort of arbitrary limit on accessory structures is scope creep of the sort which makes the I-codes SFL (So effing Lousy).

Then again, I don't think an ICC committee ever passed up the chance to make the code worse through unwarranted additional complexity based on personal agendas.
Given that the express a limit in the definitions, how would you interpret that section of the code. Is it 3000 square feet of floor area (as the code reads) , or 3000 square feet of floor area per floor (as the ICC would like to interpret or explain.)???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
righter101 said:
Given that the express a limit in the definitions, how would you interpret that section of the code. Is it 3000 square feet of floor area (as the code reads) , or 3000 square feet of floor area per floor (as the ICC would like to interpret or explain.)???
In the least restrictive way that is not substantially unsafe.
 
THE ICC HAS SPOKEN.....

Regarding the proposed interpretation 23-12 that I brought up a few months ago, the ICC has issued their final interpretation. It is contrary to the original draft and limits the size of an accessory structure (IRC) to 3000 square feet. Here is the text. It is available on the ICC website.

CHAPTER 2

DEFINITIONS

SECTION R202

2009 Edition

IRC INTERPRETATION 23-12

Issued 8-31-2012

RE_09_23_12

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure not greater than 3,000 square feet (279 m2) 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.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Q: Is the floor area limitation of 3,000 square feet the combined floor area of all stories above grade plane plus any

basement floor area?

A: Yes. The floor area limitation is for the structure, not for each floor. The total floor area of the structure, including

the basement, is limited to 3000 square feet.
 
brudgers said:
I think that accessory structures should be left as part of zoning. Putting size limits in the IRC is silly, IMO.
I agree. We did one where I used to work that was at least 15,000 sq ft. Party house and big garage. Wish I had one.

BS
 
BSSTG said:
I agree. We did one where I used to work that was at least 15,000 sq ft. Party house and big garage. Wish I had one.BS
Goes to show why this restriction makes sense.
 
righter101 said:
THE ICC HAS SPOKEN..... Regarding the proposed interpretation 23-12 that I brought up a few months ago, the ICC has issued their final interpretation. It is contrary to the original draft and limits the size of an accessory structure (IRC) to 3000 square feet. Here is the text. It is available on the ICC website. CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS SECTION R202 2009 Edition IRC INTERPRETATION 23-12 Issued 8-31-2012 RE_09_23_12 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure not greater than 3,000 square feet (279 m2) 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. ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Q: Is the floor area limitation of 3,000 square feet the combined floor area of all stories above grade plane plus any basement floor area? A: Yes. The floor area limitation is for the structure, not for each floor. The total floor area of the structure, including the basement, is limited to 3000 square feet.
The interpretation is non-binding. Of course.
 
It might, or might not be non-binding, but it is an accurate interpretation of the code as written.
 
I find it interesting that a "definition" has become a code requirement. Normally, if I am looking for a code requirement I am not inclined to look in definitions. However, in 2006 the ICC changed the definition of Accessory Building to include the limitation of 3,000 sq. ft. in floor area in the definition and I find that limitation in no other part of the IRC.

And, in the 2009 IRC, it further states that "the use of which is customarily accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling".

I recently was sent to final a 12,000 sq. ft. accessory building to a "proposed?" (construction not begun) residential dwelling, in an area zoned residential. I'm new here and just adapting to the native mindset. Inside this "residential accessory building" I was surprised to see 2,000 sq. ft. of framing for office space (according to the owner who accompanied me). There is no plumbing, HVAC, or electrical to the building (remember, I am there to conduct a final inspection of a residential "accessory building"). This is an 80' X 150' X 20' high metal building. The residential lot is 10 acres. I halted the inspection (not knowing the local habits) and defered to the building official. I think this is going to P&Z or board of adjustments.

I'm curious to see how the use of this structure is going to be considered "customaily accessory to and incidental to that of the "proposed" dwelling.
 
Durant said:
I find it interesting that a "definition" has become a code requirement. Normally, if I am looking for a code requirement I am not inclined to look in definitions. However, in 2006 the ICC changed the definition of Accessory Building to include the limitation of 3,000 sq. ft. in floor area in the definition and I find that limitation in no other part of the IRC.And, in the 2009 IRC, it further states that "the use of which is customarily accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling".

I recently was sent to final a 12,000 sq. ft. accessory building to a "proposed?" (construction not begun) residential dwelling, in an area zoned residential. I'm new here and just adapting to the native mindset. Inside this "residential accessory building" I was surprised to see 2,000 sq. ft. of framing for office space (according to the owner who accompanied me). There is no plumbing, HVAC, or electrical to the building (remember, I am there to conduct a final inspection of a residential "accessory building"). This is an 80' X 150' X 20' high metal building. The residential lot is 10 acres. I halted the inspection (not knowing the local habits) and defered to the building official. I think this is going to P&Z or board of adjustments.

I'm curious to see how the use of this structure is going to be considered "customaily accessory to and incidental to that of the "proposed" dwelling.
Definitions are a really important part of code requirements.
 
Yankee-

I would go one step further and say that the lack of more and better definitions is probably an area that code in general could be improved. Use the topic of this very thread as the example. Now, wether you agree or disagree that this code should regulate size of buildings or leave it to zoning the definition was what created the issue. In many instances the lack of clearly defining a term within the body of the code becomes the issue. Throw a State ammendment or two on top of that and you have a complete mess. I realize there is always a dictionary to default but many times that misses the mark of the context of the issue and creates even more uncertainty. So we ask for an interpretation as was the case here with the OP and we get an initial enterpretation that is not even close to how the majority of us were enforcing it. Granted, they got it right in the end and I applaud them for that, but what if righter hadn't made an issue of it?

Personally I still feel limitations on accessory buildings should be left in zonings hands but we have an interpretation now.

ZIG
 
Top