• 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

Deregulation of Building Codes in Rural Areas

jar546

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,057
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
Deregulation of Building Codes in Rural Areas:
  • Pro: Deregulation can lower construction costs and encourage development in rural areas.
  • Con: It may compromise safety standards and building quality.
  • Question: Should rural areas have more relaxed building codes, or do the risks outweigh the benefits?
 
The risks outweigh the benefits.

Some years ago my brother bought a vacation house in Vermont, where there are no building codes or inspections for single family houses. The builder was not a professional builder. -- he was a guy who bought an oversized piece of land on which to build a house for himself, and then he built a small 3-bedroom spec house on a corner of the land and sold it off to pay for the land.

There were so many code violations in that house I can't even begin to count from memory. The one that really stands out was that the two guest bedrooms were in the basement. The windows were far too small to meet requirements for escape and rescue openings, and the sill heights were at least five feet above the floor.
 
First, I think code enforcement is generally more lax in rural areas. Second, I'd favor some deregulation for owner/builders with appropriate safeguards for notification of future potential buyers. It should be possible to include something in the deed.
 
bill1952 said:
First, I think code enforcement is generally more lax in rural areas. Second, I'd favor some deregulation for owner/builders with appropriate safeguards for notification of future potential buyers. It should be possible to include something in the deed.
Click to expand...
I agree both code enforcement and building code enforcement appear to be more relaxed in these areas.
 
Some exceptions or exceptions could be considered.

Rural areas largely see less dense construction making fire spread between properties less of a concern. Additionally, the archetypes of buildings in rural and urban areas tends to be different, this could lead to other reasonable exceptions for rural areas.

Ultimately, I think there is an opportunity for some relaxations on code enforcement for rural areas but would be against a complete deregulation.
 
The other question would be what would be the impact on ensuring these now deregulated buildings? If insurance companies largely rely on approvals from local building officials of new homes, additions and renovations to verify code compliance, what will take their place?

My assumption is that insurance companies are not going to be interested in taking on more risk, so in that instance, are we simply changing one building inspection regime for a different one?
 
jar546 said:
Deregulation of Building Codes in Rural Areas:
  • Pro: Deregulation can lower construction costs and encourage development in rural areas.
Click to expand...
Lower construction costs for who? The overall cost of construction goes up, because the first guy to move in is going to have to fix/remodel his brand new house because it is falling apart. Especially if it's a finished basement, who knows what got covered up.

We have a nearby area where the houses are built with basically no inspections - millions of dollars wasted fixing brand new houses in that area. I guess it's good for the local businesses that sell products... kind of a creative way to stimulate the local economy...
 
Last edited:
jar546 said:
Deregulation of Building Codes in Rural Areas:
  • Con: It may compromise safety standards and building quality.
Click to expand...
It's not "may", it absolutely does compromise safety standards and quality. You're lucky if you get one smoke detector (and it will be buried in the mechanical room where no one will ever hear it), and your framing was done by someone who tried to save every last nail. Never use two nails when one will kinda work for a few months... Waterproof the foundation? Why? It's concrete! They build dams out of concrete, it's totally waterproof! Sure, the whole house is on three circuits, one for each floor - that's how we have always done it! Frost depth footings (34" here)? You might just get a slab - it'll probably outlast the 1 year warranty required by the state, so why not save some money?

Not a single instance above is made up, true stories all.

But they install granite countertops and trendy décor, so it's all ok...

And then they sell houses at comparable prices to those that were inspected and will last and work as expected, and whine that code enforcement drives up house prices. If that were true, why do they sell the houses that were never inspected at the same price as those that were? Codes have nothing to do with the price of homes, the contractors will charge whatever the market will bear regardless.
 
Our province has degregulated small residential buildings (ie: <625 ft2) and small accessory structures (<592 ft2). It's also emasculated enforcement powers to the point they may as well not even exist - what small municipality can afford $5,000 in legal fees to prosecute a $240 ticket?

The result is a public safety mess of little tarpaper shacks with 50-year-old wood stoves, frigged up chimneys and no smoke alarms.

Or a trailer on blocks in a zone where it's not permitted, happily pumping raw sewage into a ditch. [But when it burns to the ground because of the previously mentioned crappy wood stove installation, the wreckage will become a dangerous and unsightly enforcement matter, and DAUP legislation actually has some teeth, so once the coroner fishes out what's left of the human occupants, I can at least get the rest of the mess taken to the dump.]

We, right now, are dealing with a garage built out of wibbly-wobbly pallets and recycled trailer trusses. It only needs a development approval to meet the provincial regulations, despite the fact one of my guys says it is so poorly built, it is likely to collapse at the first snow or before.

I mean, I get it. You don't want me telling you how to build a 10x10 greenhouse, either. But there has to be some common sense - a commodity sadly lacking in politicians these days.
 
It should simply be added to the deed that the building was not permitted and inspected. If the seller doesn't disclose this, they're liable.
 
I'll also note the numerous houses built near me by the Amish for themselves. No electricity or plumbing. Outhouses. Wood heat. No record they are less safe than a basic IRC house. I wonder if they meet the energy standards. Seems doubtful.
 
This topic is related to an issue than bothers me more and more every day. I am currently in my home town, a small, rural central PA town, typical of so many others, so this is a timely post.

I have been here for 24 hours, and as I move through the town and it's built environment I am struck by what I see. When I left they had no building department, now they do, though to what extent I can't say. I wonder if as much as of their time is spent on non life-safety issues as a lot of my time is. Simply put, I believe that in a lot of respects, codes have jumped the shark. They have become difficult to understand, too numerous to track and are ever changing. They are tied to a lot of special interests, proprietary products, and individual agendas.

Whether a small town or not, I think a re-focus would help compliance. I think right now a lot of places, especially rural areas are moving into a forced non-compliance environment. I know an AHJ is often (though not always) free to adopt and amend as needed, but I wonder if the fear of legal ramifications by going a route any less restrictive than the published codes is pushing the adoption of these massive codes, and that there is a stigma attached and an AHJ may be viewed as "backwater" if they don't keep up with the Joneses.

JMHO.
 
tmurray said:
The other question would be what would be the impact on ensuring these now deregulated buildings? If insurance companies largely rely on approvals from local building officials of new homes, additions and renovations to verify code compliance, what will take their place?
Click to expand...
Excellent point
 
You can't get more deregulated than this.

the state building code, as defined in 50-60-203(3), does not apply to:
(a) residential buildings containing less than five dwelling units or their attached-to structures, any farm or ranch building of any size, and any private garage or private storage structure of any size used only for the owner's own use, located within a county, city, or town, unless the local legislative body by ordinance or resolution makes the state building code applicable to these

So those multimillion-dollar MC-Mansions you all see in the glossy real-estate magazines, remember nobody within the state's jurisdiction (Rural Areas) did a plan review or an inspection on that home with the exception of an electrical permit. If the state electrical inspector cannot get there within 48 hours, the electrical gets covered as construction keeps going.
 
bill1952 said:
It should simply be added to the deed that the building was not permitted and inspected. If the seller doesn't disclose this, they're liable.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that would require some agency or party to do said adding to the deed. And that's *added* regulation, isn't it? Which would require common sense and political will and let me know when you see the problem.
 
They should resurrect the old CABO code. It was brief, understandable, and provided a good level of safety. Insulation would need to be increased, but not to the ridiculous level of the latest IECC, and a few other items might need to be updated.
 
California has this:

R301.1.1.1 Alternative Provisions for Limited-Density Owner-Built Rural Dwellings
The purpose of this subsection is to permit alternatives that provide minimum protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public and the owners and occupants of limited-density owner-built rural dwellings as defined in Chapter 2 of this code. For additional information see Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 8, of Title 25, California Code of Regulations, commencing with Section 74.
To meet compliance with the requirements of this code, provisions of Section R301.1.1.1, Items 1 through 5 may be utilized for limited-density owner-built rural dwellings when the materials, methods of construction or appliances are determined appropriate or suitable for their intended purpose by the local enforcing agency.
A limited-density owner-built rural dwelling may be of any type of construction which will provide for a sound structural condition. Structural hazards which result in an unsound condition and which may constitute a substandard building are delineated in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
There shall be no requirements for room dimensions as required in Chapter 3, provided there is adequate light and ventilation and means of egress.
There shall be no specified requirement for heating capacity or for temperature maintenance. The use of solid-fuel or solar heating devices shall be deemed as complying with the requirements of Chapter 3. If nonrenewable fuel is used in these dwellings, rooms so heated shall meet current installation standards.
Pier foundations, stone masonry footings and foundations, pressure-treated lumber, poles or equivalent foundation materials or designs may be used provided that bearing is sufficient.
Owner-produced or used materials and appliances may be utilized unless found not to be of sufficient strength or durability to perform the intended function. Owner-produced or used lumber, or shakes and shingles may be utilized unless found to contain dry rot, excessive splitting or other defects obviously rendering the material unfit in strength or durability for the intended purpose.
 
Joe.B said:
California has this:

R301.1.1.1 Alternative Provisions for Limited-Density Owner-Built Rural Dwellings
The purpose of this subsection is to permit alternatives that provide minimum protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public and the owners and occupants of limited-density owner-built rural dwellings as defined in Chapter 2 of this code. For additional information see Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 8, of Title 25, California Code of Regulations, commencing with Section 74.
To meet compliance with the requirements of this code, provisions of Section R301.1.1.1, Items 1 through 5 may be utilized for limited-density owner-built rural dwellings when the materials, methods of construction or appliances are determined appropriate or suitable for their intended purpose by the local enforcing agency.
A limited-density owner-built rural dwelling may be of any type of construction which will provide for a sound structural condition. Structural hazards which result in an unsound condition and which may constitute a substandard building are delineated in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
There shall be no requirements for room dimensions as required in Chapter 3, provided there is adequate light and ventilation and means of egress.
There shall be no specified requirement for heating capacity or for temperature maintenance. The use of solid-fuel or solar heating devices shall be deemed as complying with the requirements of Chapter 3. If nonrenewable fuel is used in these dwellings, rooms so heated shall meet current installation standards.
Pier foundations, stone masonry footings and foundations, pressure-treated lumber, poles or equivalent foundation materials or designs may be used provided that bearing is sufficient.
Owner-produced or used materials and appliances may be utilized unless found not to be of sufficient strength or durability to perform the intended function. Owner-produced or used lumber, or shakes and shingles may be utilized unless found to contain dry rot, excessive splitting or other defects obviously rendering the material unfit in strength or durability for the intended purpose.
Click to expand...
I like that.
 
bill1952 said:
I like that.
Click to expand...
I don't know why the formatting didn't copy over, but they give you those 5 conditions as an easy out for certain design constraints. In the definitions it clarifies what can be considered under these provisions. From what I've heard it basically comes down to not having services such as water or sewer. Gas/electric are a gray area... This doesn't get approved within any city limits here, but it does happen out in the county. To some degree you can kind of do whatever you want. You provide the county with a basic site plan and they say "go for it" then if you want you call for a final inspection and give them your "as-built" plans. As long as the inspector thinks it's fine then you're done, approved.

LIMITED-DENSITY OWNER-BUILT RURAL DWELLINGS. Any structure consisting of one or more habitable rooms intended or designed to be occupied by one family with facilities for living or sleeping, with use restricted to rural areas designated by local jurisdiction. Notwithstanding other sections of law, the applicable section of Health and Safety Code Section 17958.2 is repeated here for clarification purposes.
Section 17958.2. (a) Notwithstanding Section 17958, regulations of the department adopted for limited-density owner-built rural dwellings, which are codified in Article 8 (commencing with Section 74) of Subchapter 1 of Chapter 1 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, shall not become operative within any city or county unless and until the governing body of the city or county makes an express finding that the application of those regulations within the city or county is reasonably necessary because of local conditions and the city or county files a copy of that finding with the department.
(b) In adopting ordinances or regulations for limited-density owner-built rural dwellings, a city or county may make such changes or modifications in the requirements contained in Article 8 (commencing with Section 74) of Subchapter 1 of Chapter 1 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations that it determines are reasonably necessary because of local conditions, if the city or county files a copy of the changes or modifications and the express findings for the changes or modifications with the department. No change or modification of that type shall become effective or operative for any purpose until the finding and the change or modification has been filed with the department.
 
From Humboldt County's website:

Alternate Owner-Builder (AOB)​

Important: To qualify for an AOB permit your parcel CAN NOT have public water or public sewer services readily available.​

Important: AOB residences MAY NOT be used as short term rentals.​

​

Introduction​

The Modified Limited Density Owner-Built Rural Dwelling Regulations (AOB regulations) were established by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1984, to address the unique climatic, geographical, and topographical conditions of our region. They are designed to allow individual builders to use their creativity and preferences in constructing dwellings in designated rural areas of Humboldt County, while still maintaining minimum requirements for public safety and welfare.
The regulations apply to the construction, enlargement, conversion, alteration, repair, use, maintenance, and occupancy of owner-built, owner-occupied dwellings, accessory dwelling units, and related structures in rural areas. This includes seasonally or permanently occupied dwellings, hunting shelters, vacation homes, recreational shelters, and detached bedrooms used solely by the owner of the dwelling.

Key Points​

If you are considering applying for a permit under these regulations, there are a few key points to keep in mind:
  1. Permit Applications: The owner of the parcel will need to apply for the permit and will need to act as the general contractor throughout development. As the general contractor you may subcontract, but you must be the primary point of contact.
  2. Frequency of Permits: No more than one building permit for initial construction of an owner-built dwelling in a rural area can be issued to the same person in any two-year period.
  3. Plans: You will need to submit a complete submittal (see Construction Documents) for your proposed structure at the time of application. Your construction plans shall, at minimum, include a site plan, floor plan, elevations, an electrical plan, and energy calculations. See this AOB Construction Plan Checklist for more information.
  4. Permit Validity: Permits issued for initial construction of dwellings are valid, without renewal, for a period of five successive years. Extensions may be granted under certain circumstances.
  5. Insurance: Insuring AOB structures is typically more expensive due to not having a fire sprinkler system and not having the structural elements inspected during development.
  6. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The primary AOB dwelling shall be occupied by its owner-builder only. Owner-built ADUs may be used by persons other than the owner of the dwelling; however, per HCC 314- 69.05.3.4, short-term rentals are still not allowed. ADUs shall not be rented for periods of thirty (30) days or less.

Construction Requirements​

The primary advantage of these regulations is their flexibility. They allow for the use of alternative materials, procedures, and specifications that might not be prescribed by the current technical codes, provided they ensure a reasonable degree of health and safety. This flexibility can potentially save you time and money, and it allows you to build a dwelling that truly reflects your vision and needs. Here is a summary of the construction requirements.
  1. General: If your development complies with the AOB regulations, you will not be held to the structural requirements of the current California Building and Residential Code and will not need to install a fire sprinkler system. Please note that these regulations allow for the use of substitute materials and alternative construction methods, provided they meet a reasonable degree of health and safety. The Chief Building Official has the authority to exercise judgment in determining compliance with these regulations.
  2. Mechanical Requirements: If you're installing fireplaces, heating and cooking appliances, or gas piping, they must be installed and vented according to their manufacturer’s instructions and specific chapters of the current California Mechanical and Plumbing Codes.
  3. Heating & Energy Requirements: Your dwelling must have a heating facility or appliance and, therefore, must comply with the current California Energy Code (see 2022 Energy Code Mandatory Requirements). Energy calculations (see Construction Documents) will be required prior to submitting for a permit.
  4. Photovoltaic (PV) System: A PV system may be required depending on the results of your energy calculations. Typically, a PV system will be required for any new dwelling with over 700 square feet of conditioned space.
  5. Electrical Requirements: You’re dwelling, or related structure isn't required to be connected to a source of electrical power unless you're installing electrical wiring or appliances. If you do, the installation must comply with the current California Electric Code for single-family dwellings (see AFCI, GFCI).
  6. Room Dimension Requirements: Bedrooms must have either a door to the outside or an exterior window with specific dimensions for emergency exit (see Emergency Escape Openings).
  7. Sanitation Facilities: You must provide a bathtub or shower and a lavatory, or alternative bathing and washing facility at the dwelling site. A toilet isn't required if an alternative system (incinerator toilet, composting toilet, etc.) is provided and approved by the County Environmental Health Department. Note that an approved septic system must be provided on-site before an alternative toilet system will be allowed. Also, if you use an alternative washing facility, you must provide a system for the disposal or treatment of greywater.
  8. Plumbing Specifications: If you install conventional plumbing, it must comply with the current California Plumbing Code and manufacturer’s instructions. However, alternative materials and methods are allowed if they comply with the intent of the code and protect health and safety (see Hot Water Heaters).
  9. Water Supply: Potable water must be available at the dwelling site, but it doesn't need to be pressurized. You must maintain a minimum reserve of fifty gallons of potable water and a firefighting water supply of at least 2,500 gallons (see Wildfire Hazard and Fire Safe Regulations).
  10. Fire Safety: If your dwelling has road access, the road should be wide enough for fire equipment and provide turnouts and a turnaround space. You should remove flammable undergrowth for thirty feet around each structure and maintain the roof of any structure free of leaves, needles, or other dead vegetable growth (see Wildfire Hazard and Fire Safe Regulations).
  11. High and Very High Fire Severity Zones: If you're applying for an AOB permit for a new dwelling in a high or very high fire severity zone, you must comply with the materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposures of the California Residential Code (CRC 337) and Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC) as amended (see Wildfire Hazard).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top