• 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

Classification help

Sifu

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
2,823
I have a proposed residential project. They are calling it a SFD, it is all for the private use of a resident who lives next door. The attached house is for the ranch-hands. It is a 1400s.f. house (wood frame), attached to a 20,000s.f. indoor riding arena (steel) attached to a 6,000s.f. stable (timber frame). All on a single lot, no other structures. Not sure how to classify this. I am using the 2012 IRC/IBC. My first thoughts are separate the U's from the SFD per IBC t508.4 but I am not sure the U is even permitted by t503 unless they design as a type IIB with suppression. If they do that can they get to non-separated?? I can't wrap my head around this.
 
Based upon what you have so far, I think that SFD is well out of the picture.

House would be either R-2 (>16 ranch hands) or R-3 (16 or less). Arena and stable would tend to be a U. Per T508.4, use a 2-hr fire separation between the R and U.

The issue comes in when you consider it all one building and use 508.4.2 when figuring the allowable area (calculate percent allowable; sum must be less than 1, etc). Appears that construction type is going to be key. Is the existing based upon II-B and V-B? Hard time imagining that this is sprinkled as well.
 
1400 sq ft IRC with zero fire separation distance Table R302.1(1) 1 hour—tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263 with exposure from both sides and no openings or projections
 
My issue is the use and nature of the arena and stable. Both are too big to be considered accessory out the IRC. If we do these out of the IBC then we must use one of the mixed occupancy strategies. Using the accessory option, if the main occupancy is the SFD, then the others are too big. I suppose we could use the arena as the main occupancy and consider the SFD the accessory, therefore no separation required. But out of the IBC the U building exceeds the allowable area without sprinkler increase, and if you include the stables then it would exceed it even with the increase.
UG!
 
Two completely structurally and utility supplied independent buildings built under two different codes with zero fire separation distance
 
Does the arena have seating? How many people? Less than 50, it a B.
No observation area, I might allow a "U".
 
Last edited:
My thinking right now is a SFD (type V), separated from a U (IIB), separated from a U (type V). Problems arise in allowable area without sprinklers. The combined U's = 26,288s.f., so it looks like it will only fit under t503 as an type VB R3 separated from a type IIB U, adjacent to a type VB U. And, the type U's would all need to be suppressed due to exceeding the are limitations. Additionally, unless a frontage increase can be taken on the residential lot (but I don't see how that happens), the arena and the stable combined at 26,288s.f. would exceed the limits even after a sprinkler increase, and would therefore need to be separated.

No seating in the arena (no reason to believe this is anything but residential use, for the sole use by the owners), no exemptions for farm or ranch.
 
Notwithstanding any zoning regulations - If this is on a residential lot, and the arena is not used to make a profit (no rodeos, other commercial ventures), then I would permit the new construction/attached house under the IRC. I'd refer to table 302.1(1) for the wall that connects the buildings.

The IBC is not for SFD's. I wouldn't use it here.
 
2015 IBC [A] 101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to
the construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement,
repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance,
removal and demolition of every building or
structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such
buildings or structures.
Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and
multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more
than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate
means of egress, and their accessory structures not
more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall
comply with the International Residential Code.

Cannot go by the residential code because it is not separate.

[F] 903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided
throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area.
 
The arena and stable are accessory to the SFD. IRC applies.

If in a residential district and/or the proposed use is residential in nature, then your community/jurisdiction and your applicant are best served by permitting their projects under the IRC. No good comes from using the IBC for a house.

What if there were no zoning concerns with size and the arena and stable were just a big garage? Or a garage and a greenhouse? The answer shouldn't be any different.
 
From the very get go (the first response), I attempted to indicate that this was not a SFD.

Can someone give any justification as to how this is a SFD when the known intent is to house ranch hands? This meets the definition of a boarding house, but does not meet the IRC's scoping as given by R101.2.

upload_2019-1-28_9-49-35.png

Depending on the number of hands living in the house, it would be either a R-2 (>16 ranch hands) or a R-3 (16 or less); falls under non-transient boarding house.
 
From the o.p., it sounds like owner lives on one parcel and he owns this house/arena/stable that's on the next parcel (or something like that). So, how would letting ranch hands live in it be any different than renting it to a family? Answer = it wouldn't. Not a boarding house, but a rental.

IRC applies.
 
1400 sq ft employee housing that meets the definition of a dwelling. As long as it meets the requirements of a Dwelling Unit then it can be built under the IRC

[A] DWELLING. A building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended or designed to be used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied for living purposes.

[A] 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.

I would assume the employee housing is part of their wages and therefore they are not paying compensation to stay there and most ranches need year round employees to tend to the livestock

[BG] BOARDING HOUSE. A building arranged or used for lodging for compensation, with or without meals, and not occupied as a single-family unit.
 
mtlogcabin said:
... employee housing is part of their wages...

[BG] BOARDING HOUSE. A building arranged or used for lodging for compensation, with or without meals, and not occupied as a single-family unit.
Click to expand...

If the ranch hand fails to work, will they have to vacate the house? If so, it is for compensation and thus is a boarding house.

Beyond that, the two structures are classified under the IBC, so any separation between them would be under the IBC anyways.
 
IMO, this would be okay under the IRC. When you look at the hazards and fuel loads for a fire, the the house itself is the larger hazard than a huge open arena. 1400sf house is not very big to house more than 16 after a kitchen & bath.
 
Compensation is payment of some kind by the employer to the employee.
Boarding house do not pay (compensate) their tenants to reside there
What is compensation?
Compensation is the total cash and non-cash payments that you give to an employee in exchange for the work they do for your business. It is typically one of the biggest expenses for businesses with employees. Compensation is more than an employee’s regular paid wages. It also includes many other types of wages and benefits.
 
So this is a commercial endeavor on an existing residential lot???


Sounds like the new falls under IBC
 
mtlogcabin said:
[BG] BOARDING HOUSE. A building arranged or used for lodging for compensation, with or without meals, and not occupied as a single-family unit.
Click to expand...

mtlogcabin said:
Compensation is payment of some kind by the employer to the employee.
Boarding house do not pay (compensate) their tenants to reside there
Click to expand...

If the ranch owner makes the home available to the ranch hands, it is a portion of the total compensation paid to the employee. Free housing is a trade off of more pay.

The ranch hands do not directly pay the owner, but receive less paid compensation. This is the same as the owner paying each $500 more and then charging them $500 for lodging. The proposed use thereby meets the definition of a boarding house as you originally posted (see definition above).
 
The accessory structures are limited by definition to 3000s.f. by the IRC. These accessory structures are 20,000+ and 6,000+ in area. That alone takes me to the IBC, where I would classify it as an R3. I don't think there is a way to do this without separations and sprinklers but I keep looking!

To revisit an earlier comment I made (assuming I am correct in my IBC assumption)......does a commercial building, for residential use, on a residential lot get to use a frontage increase? 506.2 requires 25% on the public way, and public way is defines as a parcel of land that is deeded or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public, for public use. This is important since without the frontage the combined arena and stable exceed the allowable area per t503 (with sprinkler increase) and would also need to be separated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top