Plumbing Fixture Count in Small Accessory Storage Building

[rosegamble]

Hi everyone.

Working with a small accessory building to an R-2 multi-unit structure. It's a storage building on the same lot, about 400 SF. Conceptually it doesn't make sense to need a bathroom / drinking fountain in this space. It has an occupancy load of 1.5ish when I calculate it. For code purposes we need to consider the storage building a separate structure from the R-2 multi-unit structure. The multi-unit structure must be IBC (not IRC) but it's townhouse like in the sense all the units have their own exterior entrances. There is no common space in the building.

I don't see any exceptions in the 2021 IBC though.

Anyone run into this before?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Yes, twice within the past 18 months. IBC 2902.3.3 and IPC 403.3.3 allow travel up to 500 feet horizontally and one story vertically to reach required plumbing facilities. Our State Building Inspector has stated that this can include traveling between two buildings on the same site. [I disagree, but ...]

This is not specifically stated in the IBC or the IPC, but in this state the State Building Inspector interprets the code, and that's her interpretation. Also, note that Exception #2 allows for more than 500 feet of travel in S occupancies -- if approved (by the building official).

 

[rosegamble]

Yes, twice within the past 18 months. IBC 2902.3.3 and IPC 403.3.3 allow travel up to 500 feet horizontally and one story vertically to reach required plumbing facilities. Our State Building Inspector has stated that this can include traveling between two buildings on the same site. [I disagree, but ...]

This is not specifically stated in the IBC or the IPC, but in this state the State Building Inspector interprets the code, and that's her interpretation. Also, note that Exception #2 allows for more than 500 feet of travel in S occupancies -- if approved (by the building official).

Interesting - thank you!

 

[ICE]

The description is vague. So I am left to speculate as to why plumbing fixtures would be necessary. Assuming that the storage space is for the use of the occupants of the R-2 structure, there would be no plumbing fixtures required.

 

[rosegamble]

The description is vague. So I am left to speculate as to why plumbing fixtures would be necessary. Assuming that the storage space is for the use of the occupants of the R-2 structure, there would be no plumbing fixtures required.

Right, I agree. But I was looking for the code trail for this.

 

[ICE]

Right, I agree. But I was looking for the code trail for this.

Proving a negative is not how the code works. If the code does not require something, that is the proof that the something is not required.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Proving a negative is not how the code works. If the code does not require something, that is the proof that the something is not required.

But the starting point of the code (both chapter 29 of the IBC and chapter 4 of the IPC seems to be that each building must be provided with plumbing facilities.

[P] 2902.1 Minimum number of fixtures. Plumbing fixtures
shall be provided in the minimum number as shown in Table
2902.1 based on the actual use of the building or space. Uses
not shown in Table 2902.1 shall be considered individually by
the code official. The number of occupants shall be determined
by this code.

In the case where I got a ruling from the State, my immediate reaction was going to be to disapprove the permit. The project involved a fairly large storage warehouse, not just a guard shack serving a larger building. Somebody mentioned that the company had previously built a similar building with no plumbing facilities, so I called the State and they blessed it.

We also had a very similar situation with a moving and storage company that was building a second warehouse. They also wanted to omit plumbing facilities in the new warehouse. The difference was that the moving company's new warehouse was on a separate (abutting) parcel. The State wasn't willing to approve having the only plumbing facilities being located on another parcel.

 

[ICE]

But the starting point of the code (both chapter 29 of the IBC and chapter 4 of the IPC seems to be that each building must be provided with plumbing facilities.

This is where the code and common sense diverge. The structure is the size of a two car garage for the private use of owners and tenants in an R-2 situation. The OP has not been specific as to the configuration. Is it an open space or segmented to provide secure storage. Whatever the case may be, there is no requirement for plumbing fixtures.

So a State inspector has convinced you that this situation requires a toilet and, LOL, a drinking fountain. Got a toilet, how about a lav for washing hands before returning to work....well there is that fountain. You know, there's fifty States. I'm guessing that storage sheds in Utah don't have bathrooms.

Of course anything is possible.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So a State inspector has convinced you that this situation requires a toilet and, LOL, a drinking fountain. Got a toilet, how about a lav for washing hands before returning to work....well there is that fountain. You know, there's fifty States. I'm guessing that storage sheds in Utah don't have bathrooms.

As I have posted in other, previous discussions, in this state local officials have NO authority to interpret the code. By statute, only the State Building Inspector is authorized to make interpretations. The current State Building Inspector is a woman. When there's any question as to what the code means, we ask her -- because the law requires that we handle it that way. I didn't ask just "a State inspector," I asked the State Building Inspector. That's her title -- by statute. It doesn't matter if I agree with her interpretation, it doesn't matter if you agree with her interpretation -- by law, her interpretation becomes binding code.

 

[jar546]

Our State Building Inspector has stated that this can include traveling between two buildings on the same site. [I disagree, but ...]

I agree with your state inspector. That is how we have always interpreted it.

 

[TheCommish]

Why is it necessary to, state the gender of a person holding a position? The gender of the person should not be a qualifying requirement for appointment to a position nor reflect on their ability to perform the job.

 

[ICE]

Why is it necessary to, state the gender of a person

I can think of a few reasons. But then, I am a dyed in the wool misogynist. However, I mostly keep that away from the genteel forum members. Asking leading questions elicits answers that you disagree with.