R1 Occupancy or IRC residential structure???

[mtlogcabin]

If zoning allows only 1 (one) Single Family Residence, then to some degree it dictates that if someone is proposing to build 3 separate structures and attempts to classify them as IRC structures, it would be disallowed.Or another way of putting it, OK, I will allow these structures to be built under the provisions of the IRC, no sprinklers, no accessibility. Fine, however, due to zoning, you are only allowed to build one.

So, technically, zoning doesn't per se determine the building code used, it would, eventually, have a large degree of influence on occupancies (use).

If they are detached dwelling units as defined in the code then they can be built under the IRC. Zoning will define the uses on a particular lot. What code is used to construct the building housing that use is the building departments call.

 

[brudgers]

If zoning allows only 1 (one) Single Family Residence, then to some degree it dictates that if someone is proposing to build 3 separate structures and attempts to classify them as IRC structures, it would be disallowed. Or another way of putting it, OK, I will allow these structures to be built under the provisions of the IRC, no sprinklers, no accessibility. Fine, however, due to zoning, you are only allowed to build one. So, technically, zoning doesn't per se determine the building code used, it would, eventually, have a large degree of influence on occupancies (use).

Under the building code each structure is a dwelling. Unless you have modified Chapter 1, zoning is irrelevant.

 

[brudgers]

So if the zoning requirements allow only 1 (one) Single Family Residence, I should just ignore those and allow them to build 3 or 4 single family residences?? Brugers, could you please provide me a list of which other laws and regulations I should ignore. Also, your "dance for your amusement" comments have already surpassed trite.

Where in the building code is there a reference to "single family residence?" The building code uses the term "dwelling."

And that is what you are supposed to use.

Not your imagination.

 

[brudgers]

SECTION 302 CLASSIFICATION 302.1 General. Structures or portions of structures shall be classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the groups listed below. Structures with multiple uses shall be classified according to Sec tion 302.3. Where a structure is proposed for a purpose which is not specifically provided for in this code, such structure shall be classified in the group which the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire safety and relative hazard involved.

You're in the wrong book. The applicable section 302 is titled "Exterior Wall Location."

 

[mtlogcabin]

If we follow the definitions in the code you will issue a permit for a

1.Dwelling Unit

2.Two family Dwelling Unit

3. Townhouse units

SLEEPING UNIT. A room or space in which people sleep, which can also include permanent provisions for living, eating, and either sanitation or kitchen facilities but not both. Such rooms and spaces that are also part of a dwelling unit are not sleeping units.

Remove the kitchen and you are in the IBC

Now does zoning phrohibit kitchen facilities in a hotel/motel? If yes then you are in the IBC, if not, then zoning cannot prohibit kitchen facilities in the units you described and you could use the IRC.

 

[righter101]

Where in the building code is there a reference to "single family residence?" The building code uses the term "dwelling."

And that is what you are supposed to use.

Not your imagination.

My mistake. I probably forgot a comma or two somewhere along the lines as well.

Ok. They are proposing to build 3 or 4 Single Family Dwellings. Zoning allows only one of these.

They would be precluded from building 3 or 4 Single Family Dwellings

They are, however, allowed to build quite a number of R1 Motel/Hotel transitory type living units.

There, I have set my imagination aside and used verbatim code language. The result is the same.

 

[brudgers]

My mistake. I probably forgot a comma or two somewhere along the lines as well. Ok. They are proposing to build 3 or 4 Single Family Dwellings. Zoning allows only one of these. They would be precluded from building 3 or 4 Single Family Dwellings They are, however, allowed to build quite a number of R1 Motel/Hotel transitory type living units. There, I have set my imagination aside and used verbatim code language. The result is the same.

Where in the building code do you find "Single Family Dwelling?" A dwelling is a dwelling, consisting of one or two dwelling units. Clearly your zoning allows multiple dwelling units on the property. I doubt your zoning ordinance in any way restricts the distribution of dwelling units within structures such that the Owner is legally required to dance for your amusement.

 

[mark handler]

Where in the building code do you find "Single Family Dwelling?" A dwelling is a dwelling, consisting of one or two dwelling units.

IBC 101.2 Scope.

The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.

Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code.

 

[righter101]

My hope in bringing this question to the forum was to get some feedback and hear arguments on both sides. I still have an open mind and am trying to make the best decision in what could be considered a grey area. I apprecaite the feedback and discussion on the points of debate.

We could honeslty deal without the sarcasm and cynicism from brudgers though. It serves no good. You can make your point without it and it will likely be better received.

For the record, the applicant hasn't even submitted anything so I am not holding a permit "hostage" or "making them dance".

 

[righter101]

Where in the building code do you find "Single Family Dwelling?" A dwelling is a dwelling, consisting of one or two dwelling units. Clearly your zoning allows multiple dwelling units on the property. I doubt your zoning ordinance in any way restricts the distribution of dwelling units within structures such that the Owner is legally required to dance for your amusement.

I use the term "single family dwelling" and "one family dwelling" interchangably. I guess I thought that was an allowable substitution. Single. One. One. Single. Maybe not.

It's in the building code. "Single Family Dwelling" appears in 6 separate locations. "One and two family dwelling" appears 31 times.

I guess we need a code change to revise this language. Apparently it is a difficult leap of understanding and huge depth of knowledge to equate a single family to a one family.

 

[righter101]

Come to think of it, we don't actually have a definition of "one and two family dwelling unit". We only have a definition of "dwelling unit". Don't even know where that leaves us??

 

[brudgers]

I use the term "single family dwelling" and "one family dwelling" interchangably. I guess I thought that was an allowable substitution. Single. One. One. Single. Maybe not. It's in the building code. "Single Family Dwelling" appears in 6 separate locations. "One and two family dwelling" appears 31 times. I guess we need a code change to revise this language. Apparently it is a difficult leap of understanding and huge depth of knowledge to equate a single family to a one family.

Since one family dwellings are exempt from the IBC, typically, the more pressing revision is to your comprehension.

 

[brudgers]

Come to think of it, we don't actually have a definition of "one and two family dwelling unit". We only have a definition of "dwelling unit". Don't even know where that leaves us??

Again, the applicable definition is that of "dwelling." So we are left in the same place, the one in which you ignore the code and make crap up instead.

 

[righter101]

dwelling

one family dwelling

is there a difference??

that isn't making stuff up, it is reading the code and trying to make an interpretation where the language isn't clear.

 

[righter101]

Again, the applicable definition is that of "dwelling." So we are left in the same place, the one in which you ignore the code and make crap up instead.

What specifically am I making up?

 

[mark handler]

Do you consider a second unit, for rent, as an R2?

Or is it under the residential code?

 

[righter101]

Do you consider a second unit, for rent, as an R2? Or is it under the residential code?

Good question. That is what I am trying to determine. There are about 15 or 20 of these and they are proposing 3 or 4 more. Very similar to the roadside motel picture that someone posted earlier in the thread (maybe even you).

Which raises the question, why can't they be classified as IRC structures and built under that code?

Contrary to what Brudgers may think, I am not set in my way and trying to jackbootedly impose unreasonable requirements on anyone. I am trying to determine the best application of the code. My mind is not made up and I am only seeking to resolve this question before they come in and submit for permit.

I did find a Washington State Building Code Interpretation

go to https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/apps/sbcc/Page.aspx?nid=70

and read Interpretation # 10-02

They pretty much answered that you could potentialy use the IRC, but the R1 IBC would be more appropriate.

 

[righter101]

Do you consider a second unit, for rent, as an R2? Or is it under the residential code?

Are you referring to a situation with like a duplex, one side owned and lived in, other side rented.??

 

[mark handler]

Are you referring to a situation with like a duplex, one side owned and lived in, other side rented.??

"....one side owned and lived in, other side rented...?

Does it matter in the code used? residental code or IBC?

 

[mark handler]

Good question. That is what I am trying to determine. There are about 15 or 20 of these and they are proposing 3 or 4 more. Very similar to the roadside motel picture that someone posted earlier in the thread (maybe even you). Which raises the question, why can't they be classified as IRC structures and built under that code?

Contrary to what Brudgers may think, I am not set in my way and trying to jackbootedly impose unreasonable requirements on anyone. I am trying to determine the best application of the code. My mind is not made up and I am only seeking to resolve this question before they come in and submit for permit.

I did find a Washington State Building Code Interpretation

go to https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/apps/sbcc/Page.aspx?nid=70

and read Interpretation # 10-02

They pretty much answered that you could potentialy use the IRC, but the R1 IBC would be more appropriate.

Washington State Building Code Interpretation

In this regard, the IBC commentary notes that “extended-stay hotels” that may well have the characteristics of dwelling units still ought to be classified as Group R-1, except for those that require a stay of more than 30 days.

 

[righter101]

"....one side owned and lived in, other side rented...?Does it matter in the code used? residental code or IBC?

In Washington, it does matter. The state has specifically unadopted the IRC provisions for fire sprinklers. Anything under the IRC would not require automatic fire suppression. Hotels, motels, and similar built under the IBC (in fact all residential occupancies) would require fire sprinklers.

The next issue that would matter is the application of the ANSI standards. I am only charged with enforcement of the IBC CH 11 and ANSI standard, but it seems like a gap or a flaw to allow what is rightfully a hotel to circumvent these requirements.

But that may not be my concern. If these can truly be permitted as IRC structures, and the owners file for permit and elect to have them built as such, then they will be allowed to make motel units with roof decks having only 36" guards instead of 42", not provide fire suppression, have handrails on one side, not provide accessibility, and not provide a "non abosorbent" surface on the walls surrounding the toilet.

I can make friends with it but it seems off.

 

[brudgers]

In Washington, it does matter. The state has specifically unadopted the IRC provisions for fire sprinklers. Anything under the IRC would not require automatic fire suppression. Hotels, motels, and similar built under the IBC (in fact all residential occupancies) would require fire sprinklers. The next issue that would matter is the application of the ANSI standards. I am only charged with enforcement of the IBC CH 11 and ANSI standard, but it seems like a gap or a flaw to allow what is rightfully a hotel to circumvent these requirements. But that may not be my concern. If these can truly be permitted as IRC structures, and the owners file for permit and elect to have them built as such, then they will be allowed to make motel units with roof decks having only 36" guards instead of 42", not provide fire suppression, have handrails on one side, not provide accessibility, and not provide a "non abosorbent" surface on the walls surrounding the toilet. I can make friends with it but it seems off.

I don't get it. Your job is to enforce the code in accord with the law.

If you want to design buildings, cowboy up and become an architect.

 

[righter101]

I don't get it. Your job is to enforce the code in accord with the law.

If you want to design buildings, cowboy up and become an architect.

In case you missed one repeated theme througout this thread, which is understandable, given the volume of your sarcasm and cynicism, I have maintained that this is a debate to reach a conclusion. This isn't some predetermined path I am set on and bound and determined to carry out.

I am not subverting laws and making folks dance, as you seem to presume about everyone.

I prefer to take an extra minute to make a decision and have a good understanding of all potential issues involved.

That is all I am doing here.

You tend to insert your opinion of a code interpretation, which is fine, that is what this forum is for, but then you launch personal attacks at anyone who you remotely disagree with. Its getting old. The whole dance thing, etc.

To date, these people haven't even submitted for a permit so I am holding nothing up. Furthermore, I am still working on deciding which path to take. No decision has been made. Do you understand that? No one has been victimized or made to dance.

 

[brudgers]

In case you missed one repeated theme througout this thread, which is understandable, given the volume of your sarcasm and cynicism, I have maintained that this is a debate to reach a conclusion. This isn't some predetermined path I am set on and bound and determined to carry out. I am not subverting laws and making folks dance, as you seem to presume about everyone. I prefer to take an extra minute to make a decision and have a good understanding of all potential issues involved. That is all I am doing here. You tend to insert your opinion of a code interpretation, which is fine, that is what this forum is for, but then you launch personal attacks at anyone who you remotely disagree with. Its getting old. The whole dance thing, etc. To date, these people haven't even submitted for a permit so I am holding nothing up. Furthermore, I am still working on deciding which path to take. No decision has been made. Do you understand that? No one has been victimized or made to dance.

I am certain you are trying to reach a conclusion. And will continue to ignore the correct conclusion until you are able to reach it.