• 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

Fire Station sleeping area

Z

zigmark

Silver Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
214
I have seen this discussed previously I am sure but can't seem to find the thread.

Local fire district has a three truck bay fire station. They want to bring in a manufactured home to be used as the "bunk house" and place it on the same lot separated appropriately but for use by the fire fighting personnel. Can the manufactured home be used as constructed for a SFR, no fire sprinklers or accessibility? We are having a discussion here and one side says that since 2009 IBC section 310.1 under R-2 says that congregate living facilities with 16 or fewer occupants are permitted to be constructed to the requirements for Group R-3 and since the scope of the IBC states that single family residences can be constructed to the IRC and knowing that Washington State has removed the sprinklering & accessibility requirements from the IRC that this building needs neither feature.

What say you all?

ZIG

2009 I-Codes with WA State ammendments.
 
Does Washington state have restrictions on useing a manufactured home designed for a SFR being used as something else?

The building can not be used for manufactured homes except for constructing the foundation, stairs and or ramp into the manufactured building. The state is the one who would regulate manufactured buildings and there final use. JMHO
 
Mt-

Washington State does regulate the construction of manufactured homes and labels them for their use.

I think I understand your question, but what is the something else this building would be being used for if the logic in my OP is good?

So that this discussion is not clouded with the States' MFH regulations lets just say that they are going to construct a 1500 sq foot stick framed building on the same lot as the fire station and the fire fighters are going to sleep in this newly constructed building. Can the building be built to the IRC without fire sprinklers or accessibility?

ZIG
 
lets just say that they are going to construct a 1500 sq foot stick framed building on the same lot as the fire station and the fire fighters are going to sleep in this newly constructed building. Can the building be built to the IRC without fire sprinklers or accessibility?
Click to expand...
Constructed to IBC or IRC codes is probaly the AHJ call but either way it is a public building and ADA will have to be met regardless which code is used for construction.
 
mtlogcabin said:
There is a big difference between a "manufactured" (HUD codes) and a "Modular" home (state building codes).
Click to expand...
brudgers said:
Which one is going to comply with ADA?
Click to expand...
Both are available

Both can be accessible

Sometimes you guys argue over the stupidist things
 
mtlogcabin said:
There is a big difference between a "manufactured" (HUD codes) and a "Modular" home (state building codes).
Click to expand...
I was going to say the same thing but I didn't know if it was just a Texas thing or not.

In Texas residential buildings are called modular and must be built to the codes that the AHJ has adopted along with zoning requirements.

Industrialized buildings are commercial constructed buildings.
 
mark handler said:
Both are available
Click to expand...
Mahogany toilet seats are available as well. But I suspect they are no more in the budget than an ADA compliant manufactured home.
 
Sometimes you guys argue over the stupidist things
Click to expand...
I wasn't argueing I was pointing out there is a difference between the modulars you linked to and a manufactured home

Buying one off the lot will not meet accessibility nor are they easily modified. It would be money better spent building a site built structure.
 
Mark-

Regarding the R-2/ R-3 it is up to the state amendments.

Actually this allowance is right out of the nonammended code text. 2009 IBC section 310.1 under R-2 says that congregate living facilities with 16 or fewer occupants are permitted to be constructed to the requirements for Group R-3. The AHJ has no say about it, it is simply allowed. What exactly is that section meaning to say? Constructed to R-3 requirements becomes R-3 allowances in this case. Does an R-2 space constructed to the requirements of an R-3 have to be sprinklered and accessible? A stand alone R-3 is further allowed to be constructed to the IRC as stated in the scope of the IBC. If I can construct this R-2 to the requirements of an R-3 and a stand alone R-3 can be constructed to the IRC it is exempt in this state from sprinklers and CHapter 11 of the IBC unless constructed to the requirements means something different.

I am also not charged with enforcing the ADA only the provisions of IBC Chapter 11 as ammended by my State.

Quit with the manufactured home stuff. I fully understand the differences and what is and is not available in my area and thought I had resolved that with my second post.

Thanks for the input,

ZIG
 
With them being a government entity, I am not so sure that the DOJ would be very lenient on them if a complaint came in - regardless of what state laws or building code state.

Besides, why should a Fire Department or other government entity that is pushing all this crap be the very one to look on a method to sidestep what they (local, state, federal) are proposing and requiring for everybody else?

Sorry, about the rant, but I am tired of big brother telling everybody else what to do... and then they try to bypass or sidestep the very regulations that they passed for the rest of us to enforce.

They (government) seem to forget the golden rule.."Treat people the way you'd like them to treat you."

.. and LIVE BY " Do as I say and Not as I do......"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Builder Bob said:
They (government) seem to forget the golden rule...
Click to expand...
I thought the golden rule was "people with all the gold make the rules"

but you are correct Bob, government should lead by example now the old "don't do as I do, do as I say do" mentality.
 
Bob-

Love the comments. Addittionally, I completely agree. Now, what is the code based arguement to support the position. Let's not be making anything up because we feel strongly about something, not that you were. I started out not in agreement with this approach but am now struggling to see the code based flaw in the arguement.

I don't specifically feel the intent of the code was to allow a dormitory R-2 space to be erected without fire sprinklers. I also feel these types of allowances were implemented within the code based on the fact that, regardless of IBC or IRC, when written they both required fully sprinklered spaces at least to some standard. Now it appears that there is an allowance in this state to circumvent it all.

I guess I still need to know if constructed to the requirements of an R-3 means it can fall into the allowance in Chapter 1 to be built to the IRC.

ZIG
 
An R-3 is regulated by the IBC and would require sprinklers..... Access may slip thru the cracks but teh designer is still responsible for ADA compliance.

However, If they used a modular home in this state, it would be restricted to use as a single family dwelling. A manufacutred home cannot be used for anything other than a single family dwelling.

I am sure that zoning laws may apply --- If they allowed a single family residence in a commercial zoning,. they have set a presendence that they (zoning) may find hard to prevent if the right person digs thru public records on this project.
 
"An R-3 is regulated by the IBC and would require sprinklers..... Access may slip thru the cracks but teh designer is still responsible for ADA compliance."

See the exception to IBC section 101.2 and read the definition of Congregate living facility as it pertains to IBC 310.1 R-2 occupancies.

ZIG
 
CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES. A building or part thereof that contains sleeping units where residents share bathroom and/or kitchen facilities.

Back to the original interpretation. Is a fire fighter a resident or just a transient occupant?

If your FC is a advocate for RFS regardless of what the state law says he should insist on sprinklers.

As a goverment owned building there is no way around ADA it has to be included no matter what building code is used. Get you attorney on board if the FD is fighting the accessibilty requirements
 
Mt-

Good point about resident or transient occupant. Did I miss that point somewhere along the way? I wouldn't doubt it if I had.

I dunno, sometimes I certainly feel I live at work.

Wonder if there is an concensus about that issue within the members here? Are firefighters transient occupants in a fire station or not when sleeping is provided?

Thanks,

ZIG
 
zigmark said:
"An R-3 is regulated by the IBC and would require sprinklers..... Access may slip thru the cracks but teh designer is still responsible for ADA compliance."See the exception to IBC section 101.2 and read the definition of Congregate living facility as it pertains to IBC 310.1 R-2 occupancies.

ZIG
Click to expand...
IF it is a detached single family dwelling..... not sure that a fire station could or should ever be construed as being a single family dwelling....... been in to many over the past 30+ years....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top