R1 Occupancy or IRC residential structure???

[AegisFPE]

What if the applicant should come in tomorrow and declare, "You know what, I'm just gonna build the cabins for each of my kids. The work will just result in elaborate on-grade treehouses."

Instead of encouraging such circumvention, consider if they were going to be straight-permitted cabins for each family member in a family compound, you would probably not bat an eye at applying the IRC, even though the family may only come together there once in a while.

Then say when they aren't there, the family lets others stay there. When I go on vacation, I have paid someone to stay at my place and feed the dog, et al.

If there is some barrier to renting them out that will be insurmountable if they are not designed and constructed as commercial buildings, then by all means share that with the applicant.

IMHO, heed the advice of your CBO to work with the applicant, not against them, within the allowances of the code. It would be too bad to cause more unpermitted construction or hidden work, because you develop an adversarial relationship for your jurisdiction amongst the development community.

On the other hand, I was involved in a PUD with multiple duplex SFR that were going to be similar to a vacation timeshare use (individually owned, and perhaps rented out). Notice, that IBC calls this Group R-2, not R-1. I do not think the WA interpretation precludes the use of R-2 as a use similar to a timeshare. The conclusion there was that not every DU would be required to be fully accessible, but that the proper proportion would need to be accessible.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Every vacation destination has single family homes that where built for the sole purpose of weekend, weekly or monthly rentals. We have them at ski resorts, lake fronts and ocean front beaches. Taking the definition of transient and applying to every project that you know will be a rental and then appling the IBC to the project may seem logical

but I don't believe the intent of the code is to be that restrictive.

I agree with AEGIS since you know they will be short term rentals advice them of the different agencies that may have jurisdiction over there project or operations.

 

[righter101]

What if the applicant should come in tomorrow and declare, "You know what, I'm just gonna build the cabins for each of my kids. The work will just result in elaborate on-grade treehouses."Instead of encouraging such circumvention, consider if they were going to be straight-permitted cabins for each family member in a family compound, you would probably not bat an eye at applying the IRC, even though the family may only come together there once in a while.

Then say when they aren't there, the family lets others stay there. When I go on vacation, I have paid someone to stay at my place and feed the dog, et al.

If there is some barrier to renting them out that will be insurmountable if they are not designed and constructed as commercial buildings, then by all means share that with the applicant.

IMHO, heed the advice of your CBO to work with the applicant, not against them, within the allowances of the code. It would be too bad to cause more unpermitted construction or hidden work, because you develop an adversarial relationship for your jurisdiction amongst the development community.

On the other hand, I was involved in a PUD with multiple duplex SFR that were going to be similar to a vacation timeshare use (individually owned, and perhaps rented out). Notice, that IBC calls this Group R-2, not R-1. I do not think the WA interpretation precludes the use of R-2 as a use similar to a timeshare. The conclusion there was that not every DU would be required to be fully accessible, but that the proper proportion would need to be accessible.

Thank you for a well reasoned arguement. It makes a lot of sense what you are saying.

 

[righter101]

Every vacation destination has single family homes that where built for the sole purpose of weekend, weekly or monthly rentals. We have them at ski resorts, lake fronts and ocean front beaches. Taking the definition of transient and applying to every project that you know will be a rental and then appling the IBC to the project may seem logicalbut I don't believe the intent of the code is to be that restrictive.

I agree with AEGIS since you know they will be short term rentals advice them of the different agencies that may have jurisdiction over there project or operations.

Again, thanks to you and AEGIS for the input. It makes sense what you are saying and the rational behind it. Much appreciated.

 

[Big Mac]

Rental units that can be rented on a less than 30 consecutive day basis has been determined to be R-1 in accordance with IBC interpretation and Washington State Building Code Council interpretation. Of course for those that have no regard for the laws as written, that won't matter.

 

[north star]

&

righter101 ( & others),

Try not to be put off or intimidated or drawn into an argument / vitriolic

exchange with brudgers.....He feeds on this type of exchange and feels

important by his attacks.......Actually, I'm not sure why he is still hanging

around here with a bunch of "perceived", ...heavy handed, ...lazy,

...government thugs who continually make up codes to satisfy our

goliath size egos.

Shirley, he could find another forum to soar like an eagle on and not

associate with us lowly code buzzards!

&

 

[righter101]

Rental units that can be rented on a less than 30 consecutive day basis has been determined to be R-1 in accordance with IBC interpretation and Washington State Building Code Council interpretation. Of course for those that have no regard for the laws as written, that won't matter.

I sent a question to the ICC.

The Washington SBCC seemed to waffle and offer either R1 or IRC, at the BO's discresion.

 

[righter101]

&righter101 ( & others),

Try not to be put off or intimidated or drawn into an argument / vitriolic

exchange with brudgers.....He feeds on this type of exchange and feels

important by his attacks.......Actually, I'm not sure why he is still hanging

around here with a bunch of "perceived", ...heavy handed, ...lazy,

...government thugs who continually make up codes to satisfy our

goliath size egos.

Shirley, he could find another forum to soar like an eagle on and not

associate with us lowly code buzzards!

&

Thanks for the insight on that. I had noticed and realized it, just got draw in on this one, but I will avoid it in the future.

I am working on a new musical score that will be played when I make people dance for my amusement getting permits. It will be titled "Ode to Brudgers". it will be a catchy tune and should be easy to dance to.

 

[brudgers]

I sent a question to the ICC. The Washington SBCC seemed to waffle and offer either R1 or IRC, at the BO's discresion.

Congratulations on dragging out a simple occupancy decision for almost a week. "When I don't like the code, I stonewall" is the name of that tune.

 

[righter101]

&righter101 ( & others),

Try not to be put off or intimidated or drawn into an argument / vitriolic

exchange with brudgers.....He feeds on this type of exchange and feels

important by his attacks.......Actually, I'm not sure why he is still hanging

around here with a bunch of "perceived", ...heavy handed, ...lazy,

...government thugs who continually make up codes to satisfy our

goliath size egos.

Shirley, he could find another forum to soar like an eagle on and not

associate with us lowly code buzzards!

&

Yes I'm serious, and stop calling me Shirley!!!

 

[righter101]

Congratulations on dragging out a simple occupancy decision for almost a week. "When I don't like the code, I stonewall" is the name of that tune.

I am afraid this could take much longer than a week.

I decided that not only do they need to dance for my amusement, but then need to wear costumes as well and the costumes are on backorder.

 

[Jim B]

I am afraid this could take much longer than a week.

righter101,

As far as I am concerned, you have every right to continue this discussion until the IBC 2212 is printed.

I am not aware that there is any bandwidth restrictions in posting to the discussion board.

I also don't see where someone HAS to read every posting or reply to a posting. It is purley optional.

"Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge." ~Alfred North Whitehead

 

[Glennman CBO]

I see this as an IRC issue, especially due the the non attached nature of it. It seems to me that the whole issue with building safety in the IBC "R" structures is due to the multiple attached units, combined with transient living and the spread of fire (intent). Will there be cooking and sanitation in these units? If so, they are IRC. I'm in Washinton State as well.

I like Aegis(?) response. I am all for MINIMUM code, and not creating an attitude of distain toward building departments/codes.

As far as zoning is concerned, tell your planners you are going to approve these as IRC structures, and let them hassle over it within their range of approval. I work with planners, giving my reasoning for these kinds of things, and try to get them to see things in a "MINIMUM code" aspect as well.

Not that I think that Brudgers needs someone to speak for him, but I absolutly love reading his posts. This is a very good topic. Thanks...

 

[righter101]

THE ICC GOT BACK WITH THEIR OPINION: Copied below:

On January 31, 2012 we received your e-mail of January 30th concerning the applicability and scope of the building and residential codes. We apologize for the lateness of our response. Our answers to your correspondence are contained herein and are based on the above referenced code sections.

We understand your situation involves an existing vacation cabin rental operation. The size of the facility will be increased by the construction of additional new cabins. You are specifically asking whether these proposed cabins should be designed, constructed and regulated under the IBC or the IRC. The answer is the ICC International Building Code/2009.

The stated scope of the IRC includes detached single-family houses, detached simple duplexes and townhouses intended to be fully functioning dwelling units. These units typically contain components that provide living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation accommodations as independent living facilities. Although these dwelling units can certainly be owned by one party and then rented or leased to other individuals, it is inherently understood that the use of these units is still done on a relatively continuous and non-transient basis.

Truly, the rental of houses or cabins on a weekly basis meets the IBC’s definition of transient in Section 310.2. Although vacation houses and cabins are not really “congregate living facilities”, the building code would probably permit them to be classified as Residential Group R-3. Most likely, a rental house located on an individual lot can still be considered as no different than a regular house and controlled and regulated under the IRC. A group of rental cabins located on a site functions the same as any other commercial development. They should be controlled and regulated under the IBC, although each cabin could be classified as Residential Group R-3.

We hope this answers your concerns in full. If you have any further questions, please call. Code opinions issued by the ICC staff are based on ICC published codes and do not include any local, state or federal codes, policies or amendments. These opinions are based on the information which you have provided. We have made no independent effort to verify the accuracy of this information nor have we conducted a review beyond the scope of your questions. These opinions do not imply approval of an equivalency, specific product, specific design or specific installation and cannot be published in any form implying such approval by the International Code Council. As these opinions are only advisory, the final decision is the responsibility of the designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code.

Very truly yours,

Gary L. Nelson, P.E.

Senior Staff Engineer

A & E Plan Review Dept.

International Code Council, Inc.

Chicago District Office

1-888-ICC-SAFE, ext 4311

www.iccsafe.org

 

[brudgers]

THE ICC GOT BACK WITH THEIR OPINION: Copied below: On January 31, 2012 we received your e-mail of January 30th concerning the applicability and scope of the building and residential codes. We apologize for the lateness of our response. Our answers to your correspondence are contained herein and are based on the above referenced code sections. We understand your situation involves an existing vacation cabin rental operation. The size of the facility will be increased by the construction of additional new cabins. You are specifically asking whether these proposed cabins should be designed, constructed and regulated under the IBC or the IRC. The answer is the ICC International Building Code/2009. The stated scope of the IRC includes detached single-family houses, detached simple duplexes and townhouses intended to be fully functioning dwelling units. These units typically contain components that provide living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation accommodations as independent living facilities. Although these dwelling units can certainly be owned by one party and then rented or leased to other individuals, it is inherently understood that the use of these units is still done on a relatively continuous and non-transient basis. Truly, the rental of houses or cabins on a weekly basis meets the IBC’s definition of transient in Section 310.2. Although vacation houses and cabins are not really “congregate living facilities”, the building code would probably permit them to be classified as Residential Group R-3. Most likely, a rental house located on an individual lot can still be considered as no different than a regular house and controlled and regulated under the IRC. A group of rental cabins located on a site functions the same as any other commercial development. They should be controlled and regulated under the IBC, although each cabin could be classified as Residential Group R-3. We hope this answers your concerns in full. If you have any further questions, please call. Code opinions issued by the ICC staff are based on ICC published codes and do not include any local, state or federal codes, policies or amendments. These opinions are based on the information which you have provided. We have made no independent effort to verify the accuracy of this information nor have we conducted a review beyond the scope of your questions. These opinions do not imply approval of an equivalency, specific product, specific design or specific installation and cannot be published in any form implying such approval by the International Code Council. As these opinions are only advisory, the final decision is the responsibility of the designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code. Very truly yours, Gary L. Nelson, P.E. Senior Staff Engineer A & E Plan Review Dept. International Code Council, Inc. Chicago District Office 1-888-ICC-SAFE, ext 4311 www.iccsafe.org

Wow! I must have missed the requirement for individual lots in the IRC - and in the IBC.

I guess making the public dance has become a part of the ICC's official agenda.

Since absolutely no code citation is provided to support their position.

And ignores the difference between "sleeping unit" and "dwelling unit" upon which an R1 designation relies.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Sounds like a best of both worlds approach and you get to keep them unsprinklered by jumping over to the IRC when you need to. Thanks for posting the ICC response.

 

[gbhammer]

Most of the cabins that I have 'camped' in did not have plumbing, a few no electric, and none of them had heat or air. Sprinklers... ouch just not going to happen in most places.

 

[mtlogcabin]

They should be controlled and regulated under the IBC, although each cabin could be classified as Residential Group R-3.

R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature

The stated scope of the IRC includes detached single-family houses, detached simple duplexes and townhouses intended to be fully functioning dwelling units. ........ it is inherently understood that the use of these units is still done on a relatively continuous and non-transient basis.

And an R-3 is also inherently understood to be non-transient.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

The one I am looking at renting this summer near Estes Park wouldn't pass CABO, and all my meals will be cooked outside. I will keep a 6 pack of moose drool in the creek to keep it cold.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature ...and an R-3 is also inherently understood to be non-transient.

I think this is the sentence that says it all:

"Truly, the rental of houses or cabins on a weekly basis meets the IBC’s definition of transient in Section 310.2. Although vacation houses and cabins are not really “congregate living facilities”, the building code would probably permit them to be classified as Residential Group R-3."

When the ICC uses the phrase like "not really" and words like "probably" in their opinion letters, it suggests they aren't buying what they are selling either, or in this case have already sold, and that is usually sold and measured by the ton.

 

[gbhammer]

The one I am looking at renting this summer near Estes Park wouldn't pass CABO, and all my meals will be cooked outside. I will keep a 6 pack of moose drool in the creek to keep it cold.

Yep that’s the type cabin I'm used to. May be safer to sleep in a tent, way less bugs in the tent, tent smells better, tent won't kill you when it collapses in a stiff wind, tent gives more natural ambience with a slightly less safety factor where animals may be concerned, but no way will the wife care one bit about any of that except the animal part that part will be the linchpin of argument for the cabin.

 

[texasbo]

Although these dwelling units can certainly be owned by one party and then rented or leased to other individuals, it is inherently understood that the use of these units is still done on a relatively continuous and non-transient basis.

Who says?

Along the same lines as the post above, this shows that ICC is winging it, which is no news to any of us. I went all through the IRC, and nowhere could I find "inherently understood" in the scoping provisions.

There is nothing "inherently understood" that some ICC guy's opinion has any more credibility than any other knowledgeable code professional.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

There is nothing "inherently understood" that some ICC guy's opinion has any more credibility than any other knowledgeable code professional.

I think the following paragraph qualifies ICC's opinions in such a way that they are inherently understood to be no more meaningful than anybody else's opinions...translation: the ICC, taking a stand for once and boiler-plating their way out of a wet paper bag.

"These opinions do not imply approval of an equivalency, specific product, specific design or specific installation and cannot be published in any form implying such approval by the International Code Council. As these opinions are only advisory, the final decision is the responsibility of the designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code."

 

[gbhammer]

It really does'nt matter if it is an R1, most of the cabins are small enough to have a design occupant load well under 10 which would allow them to be held to an R3 standard.