Bedroom or storage room or bonus room

[Bootleg]

building inspectors, who make up their own codes?

Where did I make up a code like I said before I will not approve it.

 

[Jobsaver]

Is a storage space with a door a closet? Entry halls are by your definition a bedroom.Is a Pantry with a door a closet? Kitchens are by your definition a bedroom.

Please read previous posts. The closet rule is a baseline. There are rooms with closets that obviously are not intended to be bedrooms.

 

[mark handler]

Provide code section for "The closet rule" baseline.

 

[Jobsaver]

It is a function of plan review.

 

[TimNY]

Code section? Making up codes?

Mark, how about reading the thread before throwing out ignorant quips.

The County did away with the "label game", as people would have a den, a family room, a library, a media room, an office.. everything but bedrooms since more bedrooms == more septic.

I would be curious to see other jurisdications policies of "creation of a sleeping room", or definitions of bedroom.

We have this issue coming up all the time. The biggest reason for us, being a rural county, served by septic, the required septic design is based on the number of bedrooms. If you have a 3 bedroom design, you can not build or remodel your house to a condition that would have 4 bedrooms, without upgrading your septic system.

For the purposes of septic here, each home is allotted a kitchen, living room, dining room, foyer and another room such as "den", "study", "library" (whatever they want to call it), all other rooms are bedrooms. An unfinished basement is also exempt.

I missed the part where the IRC governed the design of septic systems, or how to determine the size of a septic system. I don't think that any authority regulating a septic system is required to be bound by the IRC definition of bedroom (whick, afaik, is NOT defined in the code).

I won't quote the numerous posts I have made stating the use of the room governs whether it is a SLEEPING ROOM, which is what is regulated, not a BEDROOM.

I have been nothing but respectful in all of my posts. Please read before posting the one-liners.

 

[Jobsaver]

Just for fun.

Thanks rktect. This thread has been fun.

 

[mark handler]

Mark, how about reading the thread before throwing out ignorant quips.I have been nothing but respectful in all of my posts. Please read before posting the one-liners.

"ignorant quips"

"nothing but respectful in all of my posts"

Very respectful

Originally Posted by TimNY

...all other rooms are bedrooms.

All I want to know is where "in the code" is the basis of the asertion made, I'm not being disrespectful I'm reading your post.

 

[TimNY]

Mark,

I gave you your answer. Let me try again:

1. Our County Health Department uses these guidelines, not me.

2. There is no section of the IRC regulating the design of the septic system.

3. The County has their own sanitary code.

4. The County defines 'bedroom' in their sanitary code. The IRC (again, as far as I know) does not define the word 'bedroom'

5. The County determines the size of the septic system based on the number of 'bedrooms'

Would you please tell me where "in the code" they are incorrect? You cannot, because it would be like trying to use the IRC to regulate an automobile inspection. Frankly, I think we have they same outlook on 'sleeping rooms' as far as EERO and smoke alarms are required, but you appear to be too high on your horse to see it.

Ignorant is a valid adjective and applies to the situation. I don't see it as disrespectful. I have used it in reference to myself when confronted with certain subjects that I am unfamiliar with. Unfortunately I think popular use of the word has given it a negative connotation, much like the word 'moron' which was also a valid psychology term until it was bastardized by the masses.

 

[Yankee]

As to the "septic system argument", my jurisdiction also used to count bedroom as rooms with closets and be diligent about checking that the number of bedrooms equaled the number approved on the septic plan. But in the end we realized that it didn't matter. The number of bedrooms doesn't equate to the actual load on the system (that is simply a design value). You can imagine, it is the number of people and the manner of use that causes the load. If homeowners overload their system and blow it out, they must build another.

So counting bedrooms as those labeled does make sense, and encouraging all "closed door" spaces to have secondary means of escape also makes sense.

 

[mark handler]

You don't see "ignorant quips" as disrespectful?

Remember that. I will.

 

[JBI]

Play nice boys... There is no code based arguement for relabeling of interior rooms or spaces by the AHJ. You can't control what people will do after the CofO is issued, pull up your big boy undies and deal with it. Buyers and real estate people are getting more savvy all the time and checking with the AHJ before buying/listing a home, and yes you will certainly catch more than a few violations through this process. Issuing a CofO is like setting a speed limit, you list everything you possibly can and hope people will do the right thing. IF YOU CATCH SOMEONE SPEEDING, THEN ISSUE THEM A TICKET. Until you catch them in violation, there is nothing to cite.

Personally, if I had my plans turned down because of some 'policy' with no legitimate force of law behind it, your jurisdiction (possibly you personally) will be paying for my house and then some. Code Officials are not G-D, certification is not deification. If you can't cite a code section, don't try to enforce your personal opinion.

i seem to be agreeing with brudgers an awful lot lately... THAT's scary! LOL (just kidding Ben...)

 

[Bootleg]

Play nice boys... There is no code based arguement for relabeling of interior rooms or spaces by the AHJ. You can't control what people will do after the CofO is issued, pull up your big boy undies and deal with it. Buyers and real estate people are getting more savvy all the time and checking with the AHJ before buying/listing a home, and yes you will certainly catch more than a few violations through this process. Issuing a CofO is like setting a speed limit, you list everything you possibly can and hope people will do the right thing. IF YOU CATCH SOMEONE SPEEDING, THEN ISSUE THEM A TICKET. Until you catch them in violation, there is nothing to cite. Personally, if I had my plans turned down because of some 'policy' with no legitimate force of law behind it, your jurisdiction (possibly you personally) will be paying for my house and then some. Code Officials are not G-D, certification is not deification. If you can't cite a code section, don't try to enforce your personal opinion.

i seem to be agreeing with brudgers an awful lot lately... THAT's scary! LOL (just kidding Ben...)

John,

You surprised me, as a building inspector, if I put my name on it and someone (god forbid) doesn't make it, because the fire department can't get in and there is not a fire detector.

All I said is I will not approve it but if you want to, BE MY GUEST.

 

[mark handler]

.... BE MY GUESS.

Guest?....

 

[Bootleg]

Guest?....

Thank's Mark.

 

[Robert Ellenberg]

One jurisdiction I built in solved the septic problem by setting the minium size system as what was needed for a 3 bedroom home--even if you called it a one bedroom cottage. If you showed more than 3, you put in a bigger system.

 

[TimNY]

One jurisdiction I built in solved the septic problem by setting the minium size system as what was needed for a 3 bedroom home--even if you called it a one bedroom cottage. If you showed more than 3, you put in a bigger system.

The minimum system here is 4 bedrooms in most cases. When you get to wetlands and shallow pools they will approve a 3 bedroom simply because a 4 bedroom system will not fit.

 

[TimNY]

You don't see "ignorant quips" as disrespectful?Remember that. I will.

Mark,

You continue to deflect attention from yourself. You stated "code section?" I have no issue with this. You really contribute nothing to the thread with the statement (it had been said before, if you hadn't noticed), but I can see your point when you misinterpreted my statements.

You followed this statement with "Making up codes?" 1) Ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified 2) Quip: a clever usually taunting remark : gibe

Ignorant in the fact that you came out "guns blazing" without reading the thread to understand what my position was. Quip in that "making up codes" was clearly a ripe remark despite your attempts to back peddle, ie "All I want to know is where "in the code" is the basis of the asertion made, I'm not being disrespectful I'm reading your post. "

No, Mark, you wanted to excite the situation by asserting your assumed superior position with a quip. When you realized you were wrong, you tried to deflect attention onto me when it was you who was clearly not only wrong, but disrespectful.

You don't see "ignorant quips" as disrespectful?

Remember that. I will.

Yes, I do see your ignorant quips as disrespectful. My pointing them out is simply a matter of fact.

 

[Jobsaver]

Personally, if I had my plans turned down because of some 'policy' with no legitimate force of law behind it, your jurisdiction (possibly you personally) will be paying for my house and then some. Code Officials are not G-D, certification is not deification. If you can't cite a code section, don't try to enforce your personal opinion. i seem to be agreeing with brudgers an awful lot lately... THAT's scary! LOL (just kidding Ben...)

R109.4 Approval required.

Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official upon notification, shall make the requested inspections and shall either indicate the portion of the construction that is satisfactory as completed, or shall notify the permit holder or an agent of the permit holder wherein the same fails to comply with this code. Any portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the building official.

I understand the argument, but do not believe an arbitrary label legally defines a room either. I'll take my chances in court.

PS: If you plan on my personal assets paying for your house, you probably ought to start looking in the tent section at Walmart. Sorry . . . too many ex's already pulled that stunt on me!

 

[rktect 1]

Thanks rktect. This thread has been fun.

Didn't realize what a hot topic this would turn out to be.

 

[mark handler]

Tim

I do read all the posts.

You had made pronouncements and statements with no basis in the code.

I asked for a code reference, or basis, for those statements.

That’s it, I did not call you names, or question your intelligence.

 

[Yankee]

The point is there is nothing in the code that defines a room for sleeping (bedroom).

When an applicant submits a plan (think about commercial applications and zoning reviews also) they label the use of the areas on the plan in order to have the plan reviewed for the code requirements for that use.

There is latitude for the BO to require an area to be labeled/reviewed for a different use if the BO has code language that backs that decision.

There is no code language to back a decision of a closet = sleeping room.

 

[High Desert]

What you're approving is what is on the plans, period. I could sleep in my bathtub and I would dare any code official to take me to court on it (actually I am the BO where I live so I'd have to cite myself into court). You cannot control what a homeowner does after the C.O. If you think they mislabeled a room that you think is a sleeping room, then encourage them to install an EERO and smoke alarm, but I don't think you can require it.

 

[mtlogcabin]

R105.3 Application for permit.

To obtain a permit, the applicant shall first file an application therefor in writing on a form furnished by the department of building safety for that purpose. Such application shall:

1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made. How many bedrooms & sleeping rooms? Will the den double as a sleeping room for guest? simple question during plan review or on the application

4. Be accompanied by construction documents and other information as required in Section R106.1.

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents.

Construction documents shall be drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official. It is what the plans say and nothing more

 

[Jobsaver]

As to the "septic system argument", my jurisdiction also used to count bedroom as rooms with closets and be diligent about checking that the number of bedrooms equaled the number approved on the septic plan. But in the end we realized that it didn't matter. The number of bedrooms doesn't equate to the actual load on the system (that is simply a design value). You can imagine, it is the number of people and the manner of use that causes the load. If homeowners overload their system and blow it out, they must build another.So counting bedrooms as those labeled does make sense, and encouraging all "closed door" spaces to have secondary means of escape also makes sense.

You can imagine, it is the number of people living in a home that determines the load, and probable use, of rooms having closable doors and closets. These are the rooms most likely to be used as sleeping rooms. They are, in my determination, the very type of room that the code refers to as sleeping rooms.

What mother buys a home without first checking for closet space serving the bedrooms?