Dwelling Unit vs. Accessory structure

[righter101]

A bunkhouse is not an accessory structure because it houses a primary use not an incidental one.It is not a dwelling because it does not contain all the necessary facilities for a dwelling (which is how it gets past zoning).

Therefore it falls under IBC not IRC.

Under IBC it is an R occupancy because it is used for sleeping.

Sprinklers required.

Very interesting take Brugers. I had taken a bunk house to be an accessory use, but now I am questioning it. The issue I may be up against is the historic acceptance in our jurisdiction of bunkhouses as accessory to a SFR. I would be curious to see the debate on this forum on whether or not a bunkhouse is accessory to a residential, if it is customarily accessory to and inceidental to or not.

My head is spinning with this stuff.

 

[brudgers]

Very interesting take Brugers. I had taken a bunk house to be an accessory use, but now I am questioning it. The issue I may be up against is the historic acceptance in our jurisdiction of bunkhouses as accessory to a SFR. I would be curious to see the debate on this forum on whether or not a bunkhouse is accessory to a residential, if it is customarily accessory to and inceidental to or not.My head is spinning with this stuff.

You have conflated two terms: "Residential" and "Dwelling."

A bunkhouse is a residential use under IBC.

A bunkhouse is not a dwelling, and therefore does not fall under IRC.

It particularly does not fall under IRC because the definition of a dwelling is a single building and accessory structures and a bunkhouse is not an accessory structure because it contains a primary use.

 

[brudgers]

It is used for bunking, not sleeping. No sprinklers required.

Debunking your argument, that's complete bunk.

 

[righter101]

I thought you ordered a new code book and were going to update your tag line to 2009 codes...

I think a good case can be made for arbitrary, selective enforcement and variable interpretations.....

 

[Yankee]

All kidding aside, the bunkhouse is an accessory building to the dwelling. The fact that it is "bunked in" does not make it a primary use building. A bunkhouse is an accessory building and use to the primary dwelling.

To follow up the question, I do not believe it would be required to have heating, or lights for that matter.

Now reverse the requirements if the use is permanent housing (as opposed to "by choice" housing) such as a true bunk house on a working farm. Let the application document the nature of the use and leave it at that.

 

[brudgers]

All kidding aside, the bunkhouse is an accessory building to the dwelling. The fact that it is "bunked in" does not make it a primary use building. A bunkhouse is an accessory building and use to the primary dwelling.To follow up the question, I do not believe it would be required to have heating, or lights for that matter.

Now reverse the requirements if the use is permanent housing (as opposed to "by choice" housing) such as a true bunk house on a working farm. Let the application document the nature of the use and leave it at that.

If you are going to treat it as accessory where do you draw the line?

You can sleep a lot of people in 3000 s.f.

And if my bunkhouse just happens to be divided up into fifteen 200 square foot "bunkspaces" each with it's own bath, two queen beds, a minibar, and cable TV...is it still accessory?

 

[brudgers]

I thought you ordered a new code book and were going to update your tag line to 2009 codes...I think a good case can be made for arbitrary, selective enforcement and variable interpretations.....

I didn't buy a 2009 IRC.