• 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

Dwelling/Garage Separation?

Buelligan

Buelligan

Registered User
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
124
Location
Eastern Panhandle WV
Ok I have a good one! The code section is listed as Dwelling/Garage separation but the chart says all habitable rooms. What we have is a home owner with a large detached garage that has a large habitable second floor. By local ordinance this CANNOT be a dwelling, so he is calling it an entertainment area for his pool. The area has a kitchenette, a bathroom, a room with a closet and a large living room type area. His arguement is that since the code section clearly states DWELLING/Garage seperation and this can't be a dwelling it doesn't apply. But we see the chart says the separation is from all habitable rooms and we are requiring that the entire garage be drywalled! Has anyone else come across this issue?
 
(Amd) R309.2 Separation required: Garages attached side by side to residences shall be separated from the residence and its attic area by means of a minimum 5/8-inch type X gypsum board applied to the garage side. Garages beneath habitable rooms, closets, bathrooms, toilet rooms, halls or utility spaces in residences shall be separated from adjacent interior spaces by a minimum 5/8-inch type X gypsum board applied to the garage side of all walls, ceilings and combustible structural supports. Gypsum board joints shall be finished in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements.

That is our amendment...we take it to mean from all other spaces.....

Exception: Wood structural members of the minimum dimensions specified in Section 602.4 of the 2003 International Building Code for Type IV construction shall be acceptable without further protection.
 
The area has a kitchenette, a bathroom, a room with a closet and a large living room type area
Click to expand...
HABITABLE SPACE. A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces .

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.

Sounds like a dwelling unit to me
 
It's zoning code that does not allow it's classification as a dwelling.

The building code classifies it as a dwelling.
 
Buelligan said:
Ok I have a good one! The code section is listed as Dwelling/Garage separation but the chart says all habitable rooms. What we have is a home owner with a large detached garage that has a large habitable second floor. By local ordinance this CANNOT be a dwelling, so he is calling it an entertainment area for his pool. The area has a kitchenette, a bathroom, a room with a closet and a large living room type area. His arguement is that since the code section clearly states DWELLING/Garage seperation and this can't be a dwelling it doesn't apply. But we see the chart says the separation is from all habitable rooms and we are requiring that the entire garage be drywalled! Has anyone else come across this issue?
Click to expand...
You can always refer back to R102.1, if there is a conflict (real or apparent) in the language of the code, the most restricitve would apply. In this case, the table/chart of 302.5 the garage is required to be separated from "all habitable rooms above".
 
UPDATE! more opinions needed, thanks

UPDATE!

Ok so I went out to look at this issue. Below is an image of the structure in question. The GARAGE area is beside the habitable area. The space below is labeled and intended for storage/workshop area ONLY. NO VEHICLES, despite the garage door. Would you accept this as is or would you still require a drywall separation? The exterior walls are steel construction. Also would the sheet metal on the exterior (26 ga.) be equivilant to drywall? There is a small area (gable) of garage that shares common wall with the habitable area that has this on the garage side. Thanks!

KnottGarLabl.JPG


PS. The owner states that since the "chart" says residence that the side by side separation does not apply since this is only a "habitable" area! Any thoughts?
 
My two cents is that the separation would be required between the space above whether he says the space below is for a vehicle or not and the space above is for sleeping or not. Since the area above could easily be used as a sleeping area and the space below could easily be used to park a vehicle the wise move here is to separate those spaces. Cover yourself. This "dwelling" probably shouldn't be permitted anyway.
 
Remove the roll up doors and allow it as unprotected, leave the doors and protect it.

Also require CM/ SM detectors
 
We had the "label game" debate on a previous thread.

This appears to be a garage....

For that matter, lets just call it a piece of art, metal sculpture and not require a permit....
 
Mark makes a good point.

Permanent bollard restricting vehicle entry.

A room with a refrigerator, counter top, sink, dishwasher, all installed and working, can not simply be labeled as "storage" or "mechanical" or "not a kitchen", and have it classified as such.
 
So I don't quite understand. The structure is already built and now the owner is looking to submit plans for a permit? What building code and year? Local amendments?

I presume there is a primary residence on the property and that they built this structure without a permit. If they had applied for a permit to build this structure would the zoning code have allowed a second residence? If not then does the Building Official take notice of that fact and kick it over to the IBC as a multi occupant structure as a second single family residence is not allowed?

What I see for purposes of the IRC is a single family residence with attached garage. Requiring a separation between the workshop and the residence under the IRC is questionable. Clearly there must be a separation between the garage and the two floors and attic space.
 
"For that matter, lets just call it a piece of art, metal sculpture and not require a permit.... "

This is really gonna hurt the budget, but boy will I finally get some free time! :)
 
Ok I will try to clarify. The structure was permited as a detached garage with a 2 story unfinished storage area. This is a seperate structure from the primary residence. Upon inspection it was found that the second story had been finished without an amendment to the permit for such. So he was required to submit a renovation permit to include the finished area. The finished area is labeled and proposed as a pool house/entertainment area. A final inspection was done and the inspector required that the lower floor be treated as a garage and must be separated. The owner does not wish to drywall the area at this time. So we are trying to determine if seperation is still the intent of the IRC in this case. We need to cover all bases in case this becomes a bigger issue. Below is a picture from inside the garage to show the 26 ga metal and determine if it meets the equivilant for drywall. Someone stated it does not, any other thoughts? Thank you all for your input. I will also be asking ICC for an interpretation.

KnottGarLabl2.JPG
 
I don't think there is equivalency provisions in the IRC(mine at least), unless through a modification or appeal to AHJ...but then it is their butt on the line.....
 
Ignoring all the stated questions about how and why this building came to be in the first place I still say in matters of life safety I would err on the side of caution. Requiring separation would seem to be minor inconvenience given the scope of the project shown in the picture. Five people died in an RV nearby, the theory now is from CO poisoning, the kicker is that the generator may not have even been in the same RV, which demonstrates the danger we are all aware of. Ask yourself this: if the guy is too stubborn to see the validity of such a minor safety precaution as drywall/membrane separation, will he also be too stubborn to admit that his gas powered equipment or running vehicle could potentially kill someone in his own family? Then would he be too stubborn to admit that it was his decision to not install it over your objections when he is sitting on the witness stand? Don't protect this guy from himself if you don't want to, protect yourself from this guy, protect the unwitting occupants of the rooms above from this guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top