R1 Occupancy or IRC residential structure???

[righter101]

We have an applicant who would like to construct 3 or 4 small (pan abode, 400 sq ft ish) cabins on a parcel and use them as short term rentals, vacation rentals, transitory living.

I have been telling them all along that they would fall under the scope of the IBC as R1 occupancies. In line with that, Washington State has separate provisions that distinguish between IRC occupancies and other residential occupancies (such as hotels).

They have been arguing that they feel the structures should be treated as IRC structures.

I am currently debating this with the CBO (my boss). He is tending towards the opinion that the IRC is actually silent on use, specifically, it doesn't say that you can't use a SFR for transitory rentals, thus it would be appropriate to apply the IRC.

In Washington, this would be the difference between sprinkled and not (the IRC ammended by Wa. removes the sprinkler requirement, the IBC keeps it for R occupancies.)

I just wanted to get thoughts from others on this.

I am sticking by my call of R1 and an 13R system. My call may get shot down but I was looking for other opinions and perhaps justification to support my poistion, or on the other side, those who agree with using the IRC and why that is acceptable. I will accept either outcome but wanted to get a broader source of input.

Thanks to all in advance.

 

[cda]

Is this up in the hills??

I have seen the question posed before and some places kind of exempt or have provisions for moutain rentals

Now is this going to be an actual business, like you drive down the road and see yogi's cabin rental sign??

How about zoning???

 

[Architect1281]

Righter Agree with R-1 as if R-3 would be an attempt to jump to IRC the key is here

TRANSIENT. Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 days.

one could use that definition to imply Non- Transient as 31 days plus

But then again the IRC dwelling defined = DWELLING. Any building that contains one or two dwelling

units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied,

or that are occupied for living purposes --- so then maybe zoning use description etc - I was going to agree but then got unconvinced by

the definition in the IRC ?? Any Building; no mention of how long to occupy transient or not in the IRC ?? so I'm confused

How could you deny it??

 

[righter101]

Is this up in the hills??I have seen the question posed before and some places kind of exempt or have provisions for moutain rentals

Now is this going to be an actual business, like you drive down the road and see yogi's cabin rental sign??

How about zoning???

This place is called (XXXX Harbor Resort). It is a commercially advertised vacation destination. The have signs and are in all the tourist books.

I will look at the zoning aspects of this.

 

[righter101]

Righter Agree with R-1 as if R-3 would be an attempt to jump to IRC the key is here TRANSIENT. Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 days.

one could use that definition to imply Non- Transient as 31 days plus

But then again the IRC dwelling defined = DWELLING. Any building that contains one or two dwelling

units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied,

or that are occupied for living purposes --- so then maybe zoning use description etc - I was going to agree but then got unconvinced by

the definition in the IRC ?? Any Building; no mention of how long to occupy transient or not in the IRC ?? so I'm confused

How could you deny it??

That is the BO's point. "no mention of how long to occupy..." transient or otherwise. We allow people to get "vacation rental" permits for their single family dwellings.

For some reason it seems as though we may set a bad precedent for ourselves. I will talk to planning tomorrow about the zoning and go from there.

 

[cda]

sounds like they are putting themselves out there as a full time business motel/hotel like business, no different than marriott

sounds like a R-1

 

[mark handler]

Rental.... Don't forget Accessibility. But I would say, if detached, IRC. If attached IBC.

 

[brudgers]

IRC does not exclude transient occupancy.

In addition the IBC definition of "Dwelling" is based upon the number of dwelling units AND not upon the agreement under which they are occupied, i.e. it is explicitly inclusive of rented units.

The key provision is that each dwelling unit must provide "complete, independent living facilities."

IMO, you are entirely and completely making up code out of whole cloth.

 

[imhotep]

We have an applicant who would like to construct 3 or 4 small (pan abode, 400 sq ft ish) cabins on a parcel and use them as short term rentals, vacation rentals, transitory living.I have been telling them all along that they would fall under the scope of the IBC as R1 occupancies. In line with that, Washington State has separate provisions that distinguish between IRC occupancies and other residential occupancies (such as hotels).

They have been arguing that they feel the structures should be treated as IRC structures.

I am currently debating this with the CBO (my boss). He is tending towards the opinion that the IRC is actually silent on use, specifically, it doesn't say that you can't use a SFR for transitory rentals, thus it would be appropriate to apply the IRC.

In Washington, this would be the difference between sprinkled and not (the IRC ammended by Wa. removes the sprinkler requirement, the IBC keeps it for R occupancies.)

I just wanted to get thoughts from others on this.

I am sticking by my call of R1 and an 13R system. My call may get shot down but I was looking for other opinions and perhaps justification to support my poistion, or on the other side, those who agree with using the IRC and why that is acceptable. I will accept either outcome but wanted to get a broader source of input.

Thanks to all in advance.

Will the operator be required to hold a motel license from the Department of Health per Chapter 70.62 RCW? Three (3) seems to be the magic number even if they are detached.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.62

 

[permitguy]

Here's a recent discussion on the same topic, including a link to a 2007 discussion on the old board. There's never really been consensus on this topic:

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5977-R-1-or-R-3&highlight=transient

 

[cda]

I new this had been cussed before , was not sure which board.

Boy are we getting old

Thanks permit

 

[khsmith55]

Not knowing what Edition your under, I might try to classify them as R3 as permitted by 2009 IBC, Section 310.1 for congregate living facilities (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants. 400sfx4 units = 1600sf, 1600sf/200olf=8 occupants. I have successfully used this position for “short term” house rentals in ski areas.

 

[mtlogcabin]

[F] 903.2.8 Group R.

An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area .

Probably the most unreasonable and pompus requirement in the code. There should have been exceptions written in at adoption.

I would have to go with if a motel/hotel liscense is required from the state than an R-1. If it is liscensed as a campground I would lean to the IRC.

 

[righter101]

Rental.... Don't forget Accessibility. But I would say, if detached, IRC. If attached IBC.

That is one of my concerns. If they are permitted under the IRC, there are zero provisions to make them accessible.

 

[Coug Dad]

I worked on a similar one in the mountains of Washington State. We treated the detached houses as residential code.

 

[mtlogcabin]

That is one of my concerns. If they are permitted under the IRC, there are zero provisions to make them accessible.

If you have 4 or more units on the same property doesn't fair housing kick in? Not sure just asking

 

[righter101]

Not knowing what Edition your under, I might try to classify them as R3 as permitted by 2009 IBC, Section 310.1 for congregate living facilities (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants. 400sfx4 units = 1600sf, 1600sf/200olf=8 occupants. I have successfully used this position for “short term” house rentals in ski areas.

We are under the 2009 I-Codes, as ammended by the State of Washington.

I considered them as structures under the IBC, however, the debate is whether they should even be under the IBC or if they could be under th IRC.

 

[righter101]

mtlogcabin "If you have 4 or more units on the same property doesn't fair housing kick in? Not sure just asking "

It very well may, I am not charged with enforcing fair housing provisions though.

 

[mtlogcabin]

It very well may, I am not charged with enforcing fair housing provisions though.

Neither am I but they request copies of our building permit every month and they did reach settlement against another jurisdiction because the building dept failed to tell the owner/designers that fair housing may apply. Watch your back

Nov 2003

Montana Fair Housing Reaches Agreementwith City of Missoula

​

Montana Fair Housing and the City of Missoula reached anagreement, which settles a complaint filed with the MontanaHuman Rights Bureau in April of 2003. The complaint allegedthat personnel who work for the City of Missoula were violatingfair housing laws by not providing appropriate notification topersons “prior” to the building multi-family housing.“Montana Fair Housing’s mission is to ensure that ALLMontanans have equal access to housing in this state. Webelieve some of the actions and information provided byMissoula officials was allowing apartment buildings of fourunits or more to be built in ways that are not accessible andtherefore, not compliant with the Federal Fair Housing Actand the Montana Human Rights Act. We are seeing a lot ofapartment complexes going up that are built split-level—thatis stairs leading to all apartments,” stated Bob Liston.Pursuant to the agreement, the City of Missoula will put intoplace various activities that will help ensure that owners anddevelopers understand their responsibilities for Design andConstruction requirements under various applicable laws.Among the items agreed to in this settlement are:· All City officials who have anything to do with buildingpermits, zoning, codes, etc. will attend training conductedby Montana Fair Housing;· All persons requesting a building permit will berequired to sign a letter of acknowledgement of theirunderstanding that they may be required to follow certainfederal and state accessibility standards; and· Montana Fair Housing and the City will jointly ask

​

the State of Montana for interpretation and clarification of

city officials’ responsibility to inspect for federal standards.

In addition, Montana Fair Housing plans to conduct a significant number ofworkshops around Missoula and the state to better inform builders, owners,architects and building inspectors of their responsibilities under federal andstate accessibility laws.“We look forward to working collaboratively with the City of Missoula, as wellas other entities, to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal housingopportunities in Montana,” added Bob Liston, Executive Director of Montana

​

Fair Housing.

 

[cda]

So Marriott could build 50 of these on a property and they would not be condidered a hotel or motel

Back in the day of route 66 they were called motels

 

[mtlogcabin]

Or a KOA with 50 site built cabins would still require sprinklers under the IBC because they are Group R

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.

Some more thought and some exceptions need to be considered for section 903.2.8

 

[righter101]

The more I read the code, the more I am leaning towards agreeing with the BO's decision to allow them as IRC structures. They are proposing adding 3 units, small detached, single dwellings. There are already 8 or 9 on the property. Nothing in the IRC would prevent this. They are able to bypass accessibility as well as fire suppression by going this route. (as well as some items such as non-absorbent surfaces in the restrooms).

They qualify as IRC structures. No accessibility. If they are in violation of fair housing, someone could take up a challenge against them. After reading the mtlogcabin issue about the state of Montana, I will talk with our legal before approving these.

In response to CDA, technically, Marriott could build 50 of these, if zoning allowed it, and whether or not they are called hotels or motels is not relavent. The crux of the issue is not use, rather, "do they fall under the scoping provisions of the IRC". Which I do believe they do.

 

[BSSTG]

Greetings,

I would consider them R3 as long as they are separated and minimum requirements of IRC chapter 3 are met. No sprinklers needed.

BS

 

[mtlogcabin]

Well lets follow the code

2009 IBC

310.1 Residential Group R.

Residential Group R includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for sleeping purposes when not classified as an Institutional Group I or when not regulated by the International Residential Code in accordance with Section 101.2. Residential occupancies shall include the following:

Well they will be sleeping there

101.2 Scope.

The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration , movement, 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 .

They are detached and not more than 3 stories so they are regulated by the IRC.

I believe you can use the IRC in this case