Is a permit required for a HABITABLE accessory structure

[bill1952]

Just more reasons to stay far from left coast.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Yes these would be rented out like campsites,

You have not stated how many of these "sleeping units" will be built. This sounds like more like a commercial venture not a use regulated under the IRC.
2018 IRC
[RB] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure that is accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and that is located on the same lot.

 

[bill1952]

I think building code could be a trivial challenge compared to zoning. https://www.nssh.com/2019/01/glamping-is-it-a-resort-or-a-tent/

I suspect that the building code challenges are the reason a lot of these are temporary tents, camping trailers, etc. and other shelters not "constructed".

 

[Robert]

Thanks. Yes I'm aware of the planning end of it....I was only asking about bldg. permits. Planning typically requires Use Permits for camping....around $10000 here in CA once all of the consultants are paid.... at least in the area he's asking about. Septic, leachfield etc would be part of the separate bathrooms/showers and of course require permits. As accessory structures, you are right that there needs to be a main residence on the property....so if the land is vacant now, a main residence would have to be built first in order for these to be accessory? Planning has limits to the number of campsites based on lot size and zone, but is there a square footage percentage that these cannot exceed to keep them "accessory"?

 

[dancinbear]

Bill 1952 points out the difference in size of permit-exempted accessory structures between the California code cited and the 2018 model code (120 v. 200). He also correctly points out the 2018 definition of accessory structure, but I disagree with his conclusion that no permit is required. Regarding accessory structures, the 2018 IRC commentary states: "These structures are commonly used as garages, cabanas, storage sheds, tool sheds, playhouses, and garden structures...their use is secondary or minor in importance to the primary residence."

Joe B points out the definition of habitable space, and the "glamping cottage' absolutely meets that definition. Regarding habitable space the 2018 commentary states: "Habitable spaces are typically occupied, and as such they are more highly regulated than accessory use areas".

It is clear the "glamping cottage" is not an accessory structure and is habitable space. The code gives us no special rules for a detached structure regulated by the IRC with these characteristics. Note that R101.2 only regulates dwellings and accessory structures, so we must treat this space as if it was (an attached) part of the dwelling unit.

Regarding a glamping cottage that you allowed to be built with no permit, no smokes, no EER compliant egress, I hope you never have to hear yourself say: "Yes, your honor, I knew that people were going to be sleeping in there, but it was only 119 square feet".

 

[BN4537]

Good stuff. Yes these would be rented out like campsites, but with a little more comfort. I Agree permits would be good, but I like understanding what triggers things. So far I'm thinking still no permit req'd. No electricity?....smoke detector...good point...battery operated. Heat?....good point...woodstove. Wind/seismic....good point and would be engineered to meet code, but still not requiring a permit since everything needs to meet code regardless if a pemit is required. Lighting?....little solar lanterns hanging around for ambiance or something similar. Also many of these I'm seeing are on wheels or skids so that could negate some of these items. I don't even think insulation is required (or energy compliance) since they aren't using fossil fuels....wood only. And of course local ahj may think differently.

I think you are correct, from a purely building code standpoint.

The building codes, the property maintenance codes, and the local zoning codes are (should) be designed to work together, therefore the building code doesn't necessarily need to cover issues that are covered by the other codes.

If the "glamping cottage" somehow got through zoning, and then was built without permit or inspection (since they aren't required by the building code), I believe the property maintenance code can address most of the safety concerns involved if it becomes a problem.

 

[SCBO1]

So...Appendix Q @ 400sf is doing the zoning for you if adopted? Building code and zoning to different issues here.

The Californians...Stewart....what..are you doing here?

 

[bill1952]

Dancinbear, we will have to disagree but commentary is not code and nowhere in the IRC is there basis for "living, sleeping, eating or cooking" in an accessory structure. A bedroom for a maid or relative in an accessory structure is just as "incidental" using distionary definitions as a cabana or playhouse. Merriam Webster says a cabana, a use from commentary, is a "lightweight structure with living facilities", a fundamental of "habitable".

Regarding your final comment, I take strong exception to your assuming that exempt from permit means not to code. Not to code would clearly be unlawful, and exempt from permit does not mean it is exempt from inspection. Here, I was looking into a 144' (local amendment for exempt from permit) tool shed, for which I need zoning approval, and the zoning officer (1 person, 2 villages, 2 towns, zoning and building except electrical) was clear not having a building permit did not exempt it from code and he would look at it when checking zoning.

I do find the IRC not clearly or particularly well written.

 

[bill1952]

was built without permit or inspection (since they aren't required by the building code)

Can you point out where the IRC says a building department can't inspect a building, regardless if it being exempt from permit?

 

[tmurray]

You have not stated how many of these "sleeping units" will be built. This sounds like more like a commercial venture not a use regulated under the IRC.
2018 IRC
[RB] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure that is accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and that is located on the same lot.

I would agree.

I'm having a hard time envisioning any main use on a property that would let me consider a glamping dome as an accessory.

 

[ADAguy]

I think an overlooked part of this question is the intended use of said "glamping cottage." Is this someone's private ranch and they want a nice cabin up by the lake so when their family comes in they can hike up to the lake and have a nice room to "camp" in, or is this someone who intends to rent these out to make money? If it's the latter I would recommend getting permits even if there are loopholes one could use to say a permit is not needed. Could you imagine how that would look in court if something bad happened? "Family dies in unpermitted structure..." That's not going to go well for somebody.

Potential B n B?

 

[BN4537]

Can you point out where the IRC says a building department can't inspect a building, regardless if it being exempt from permit?

The IRC does not actually say that you can't inspect something that is exempt from a permit - but neither did I. I said that the permit and inspection weren't required by the building code. If you look at Section R109, it lists the inspections that are required to be done, and in every case the permit holder or their authorized agent have to get inspections scheduled. If there is no permit, there can be no permit holder, therefore no inspections are required to be done by the building official. The assertion that no permit is required is delineated in section R105.

Personally, I think that a building official trying to enforce something because "the code doesn't say I can't" is an overreach, and I don't think that it would go over well in a lawsuit. It might work in some places, but around here the building official would get destroyed in court.

Obviously, if the building official has a reasonable cause to believe that there are issues after the project is completed (Section R104.6), then he can address it through property maintenance enforcement.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Can someone explain why you would take a 35 year old code exception that is Intelligent Clear and Concise and change it to what the 2018 states which is creating the discussion we are having now. What was the reasoning behind the code changes?

2012 IRC
[A] 105.2 Work exempt from permit.
Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:

Building:

1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11 m2).

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure not greater than 3,000 square feet (279 m2) in floor area, and not over two stories in height, the use of which is customarily accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and which is located on the same lot.

2018 IRC
R105.2 Work exempt from permit.
Exemption from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:

Building:

1. One-story detached accessory structures, provided that the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet (18.58 m2).

[RB] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure that is accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and that is located on the same lot.

 

[bill1952]

Good points. I keep "history" of IBC 4.10 for same perspective, and go back to 1969s with NFPA 101 assembly chapters. Often only way to understand how we got here.

You really need the code change record to figure this out. It felt that when the CABO OTFDC transitioned to IRC a lot of institutional knowledge was forgotten or lost.

 

[rgrace]

Can someone explain why you would take a 35 year old code exception that is Intelligent Clear and Concise and change it to what the 2018 states which is creating the discussion we are having now. What was the reasoning behind the code changes?

In my part of the country, we didn't change it. Thank the heavens for that, or I would be finding this discussion more disturbing rather than entertaining Our amended code currently reads:

108.2 Exemptions from application for permit.

2. One story detached structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses or similar uses, provided the building area
does not exceed 256 square feet (23.78 m2) and the structures are not classified as a Group F-1 or H occupancy.

This administrative section is applicable to all our codes, including IRC. That's why there is a reference to Group F-1 and H.

I guess one can argue that a glamping cottage can be used as a playhouse . . . but that wouldn't fly here.

 

[rgrace]

Can someone explain why you would take a 35 year old code exception that is Intelligent Clear and Concise and change it to what the 2018 states which is creating the discussion we are having now. What was the reasoning behind the code changes?

Yes.

ADM27-13. It was a two part code change. Part I was IBC, Part II was IRC.

Proponent's reason statement said "The term “used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses” is proposed to be deleted because there now
exists in the IRC a definition for “accessory structure”. It is unnecessary to further define the term in the rule as it only serves to add confusion. For example, a small outdoor screen room meets the definition of accessory structure but is it exempt from permits? It poses no more of a hazard than a playhouse or tool shed. It is better to let the definition provide direction. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure not greater than 3,000 square feet (279 m2) in floor area, and not over two stories in height, the use of which is customarily accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and which is located on the same lot.

IBC Committee disapproved it, saying "While typically laundry lists are not warranted, not all small structures should be considered accessory. These examples need to left in the code for clarity."

IRC Committee approved it, saying " The committee approved this code change proposal because they felt that the type of information addressed by this proposal is suitable for inclusion in the commentary to the code, but not in the code itself."

Final Hearing results changed nothing.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Thanks for the info
The commentary does not say a damn thing about it and if it did it is not code and therefore not enforceable.
The definition of accessory structure is now not limited by sq ft and the height is now limited to 3 stories as an IRC structure which is more than allowed under the IBC for an S-1 or U occupancy
As for the 200 sq ft exemption it was for specific structures and their uses now it can be a free for all.
It was a specific limited use exception within the code for Clarity as the IBC Committee noted. The IRC Committee definitely did not think that one through.

 

[bill1952]

Thanks rgrace. Nothing like the written code development record to clarify the original intent.