• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

SFR?

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,720
Location
Not where I really want to be
I have a pole building that was submitted as a SFR. The bottom was a large garage for the owner's toys and the 2nd floor was to be a SFR. The initial permit was for the frame and skin only as the owner was going to contract out finishing the interior. Zoning was approved as a SFR and a permit was issued for the frame and skin only with the knowledge that another permit would have to be pulled for the interior construction of the 2nd floor and fire separation between the garage below and the SFR. Still with me?

Anyway, I just did a framing and skin inspection and was just told by the contractor that he is being asked to bid the project to finish the 2nd floor SFR. He asked me if he needed 5/8" rock for the ceiling to separate the attic and I said no. He said, "Oh, I thought apartments had to be separated". I said what apartments. I was then told that the owner plans on dividing the 2nd floor in half and will be renting out one side and will have exercise equipment and whatever else he wants on the other side for him. Now the owner will not live there at all but will(wants to) occupy half of the 2nd floor and all of the garage for his vehicles AND rent out the other apartment.

I am bumping this to the zoning officer first but need to figure out where he stands with the I-codes. The building was built per IBC due to construction type but the original SFR was to comply with the IRC. Nothing has been submitted yet for completing the project so I want to nip this in the butt before they plan too far ahead.

Thoughts?
 
Re: SFR?

Does the zoning to allow the SFR to be non owner occupied?

Either way, do they remember that another building permit is needed? I would mention "You will be seeing me again soon"!

And maybe add "Don't continue the work until the build-out permit is approved"
 
Re: SFR?

jar546, verrry interresting!

1st permit: Has it expired?

Has to pass the zoning smell test 1st, do you have R-1 and R-2 zoning. Second paragraph. "contractor said apartments" again zoning?

What is the min. square feet allowed for SFR and for duplex(2-Family) if a duplex is allowed by your zoning in the SF R-1 zone?

Bathrooms required for both sides?

How many electric and water services?

Can you post the plan? or your own sketch?
 
Re: SFR?

Jeff -

Planning Dept. is my first stop on a matter such as this. As others have stated, the jurisdiction where you are located might not allow/approve this type of use in that zone.

Then, I would request a full set of stamped plans as this has now turned into a change of the original proposed mixed use occupancy. The reason behind this is that unlike CA where we tweaked the heck out of the IBC and turned it into the CBC so you can build a SFR, this was built using the IBC and you are requiring a separate set of plans that meet the IRC.

Sue, hoping the logic makes sense
 
Re: SFR?

Jeff,

This is easy if your owner is an honest and forecoming man. If he is not it will turn into a MESS!

I have ran into that before. The times I was lucky, zoning prohibited it so it died there, but that was when they were honest about what they were doing.

If he is honest and up front, you have a mixed use building and it has to be protected, separated etc. If he is not honest you have a SFR that really isn't. Because if he applies to finish it as a SFR, the layout etc. may seem funny (strange) but its his home and all we can do is enforce minimum code. We also can't call him a liar, based on what the contractor has told you, we have to go by the plans submitted and constructed to.

It is clear to me that if it is a SFR (whole structure is his home or a rental home) and the garage is accessory to the SFR he gets to use IRC and construct. If he builds apartment, fitness area and garage/storage it stays in IBC as a mixed use multi-tenant building.

The problem will be enforcement after the construction is done and good luck. Talk to the City Attorney now, make sure he understands what the problems could be, sometimes they don't understand this can be dangerous not just a nusiance. These get ugly in a hurry when the real separate uses come out, and usually you hear about it from the neighbor next door who doesn't like it.

From all your posts etc. you seem to have great code skills, just document, document, document everything on this, including your conversation with the contractor, these end up in court a great many times. But if you document and even better work into a letter or into plan review comment about the whole thing needing to be a SFR (put in there the the definition of a dwelling unit, SFR etc. so he can't say he didn't know), based on the plans submitted and the plan review you performed, you will probably win that one in court down the road.

Sorry to ramble, but there ain't an easy answer if the owner isn't honest and up front and makes this something other than a SFR. Best advice I can give is start your file now and keep it complete throughout the whole process and don't lose it when the C of O is issued. :)
 
Re: SFR?

Is this an owner/builder permit? In my jurisdiction, state laws would prohibit the "new" concept (apartment/ non-owner occupied) from being allowed to be issued to an owner/builder, whereas the SFR could be issued to an owner/builder. How about in your state?
 
Re: SFR?

Love it.

And why won't it work as a duplex over a garage besides zoning?

Since I haven't work on one of these in 10 years here's some questions:

1. Used to be under the old UBC there was a reduction taken for barns for wind loads. Don't know (since we don't have any pole barns) and am too lazy to determine if that still used in today's codes.

2. I used to got complete engineering for all the complete structure including foors, ceilings. Included all brackets needed to carry beams and attachments to posts.

3. Energy code if you require it?

4. Rest is basic homebulding 101.

Currently there was one to be built here before the permits went to heck early last year. Took them months to get the engineering right and that was for a one story building to be part home and part horse stable. To be honest I don't think ever got more than footings in the ground.
 
Re: SFR?

I call it a mixed use building. Storage facility and residential occupancies. Sprinkler and seperate!
 
Re: SFR?

Jeff - Hope you've got your waders handy, I think you're going to need them! IF (and that's a big 'if') the final product falls within the scope of the Res Code it might not be too bad. If it doesn't, then are they able to provide the required sprinklers for an R occupancy under the Building Code? (sorry to muddy the waters even more, but an important thing to consider)

Don't get too crazy about the contractors' reference to 'apartments'. A lot of them use a word without really understanding its' meaning... His use of the word 'apartments' may have been a misuse of the word. As evidenced by his subsequent description of the spacial divisions - one space for a DU and one for exercise equipment or whatever - it sounds like only one DU is intended. Whether or not it could still be classified as a SFR is unclear at this time.

SFRs generally provide more living space than storage/garage space, but I'm not so sure they are required to...

It sounds like you will get the opportunity to really test your mettle in regard to the often complex world of cross-referencing the Building Codes with Zoning. Hard enough to do when they are both within your authority and jurisdiction. When one is someone elses' responsibility it gets... interesting?

Without an actual plan for the build-out it is impossible to predict what you will eventually see in there. But it is an excellent reason to avoid 'shell only' permits, at least for SFRs.
 
Re: SFR?

My first take on this was it was a mixed use under the IBC. Further thinking had me where Fred is, really could be nothing more than a duplex over a garage, under the scope of the IRC. Then upon further reflection, I got to where John is thinking, does the separated exercise space even qualify as a DU? If not, then it is, from a code perspective, a SFD, with a strange configuration. The DU, a separated exercise room, and a garage. I would be kicking it to zoning, but lacking help there, I'm thinking that it still could happen under the IRC for the finish.

Very interesting.....it never stops for you Jeff, does it?
 
Re: SFR?

Jeff, how big is the lower garage. The 2006 IRC changed the definition of accessory structure, which I believe this would be, to not more than 3,000 sq. ft. If it exceeds that, you would have to have it comply with the IBC as a mixed use building.
 
Re: SFR?

If it only has one dwelling then the building is a one family dwelling.

I don't see anything which is in violation of the IRC.

Owner's retain partial use of rental one family dwellings all the time.

It will probably even be difficult to find anything in violation of a typical zoning code.

In other words if you believed that the Owner would live there with this arrangement, what would you cite under zoning?

Personally, I don't see what the issue is.

The owner has a permit and is building one dwelling.
 
Re: SFR?

Jar546 wrote:

I have a pole building that was submitted as a SFR. The bottom was a large garage for the owner's toys and the 2nd floor was to be a SFR. The initial permit was for the frame and skin only as the owner was going to contract out finishing the interior. Zoning was approved as a SFR and a permit was issued for the frame and skin only with the knowledge that another permit would have to be pulled for the interior construction of the 2nd floor and fire separation between the garage below and the SFR. Still with me?Anyway, I just did a framing and skin inspection and was just told by the contractor that he is being asked to bid the project to finish the 2nd floor SFR. He asked me if he needed 5/8" rock for the ceiling to separate the attic and I said no. He said, "Oh, I thought apartments had to be separated". I said what apartments. I was then told that the owner plans on dividing the 2nd floor in half and will be renting out one side and will have exercise equipment and whatever else he wants on the other side for him. Now the owner will not live there at all but will(wants to) occupy half of the 2nd floor and all of the garage for his vehicles AND rent out the other apartment.

I am bumping this to the zoning officer first but need to figure out where he stands with the I-codes. The building was built per IBC due to construction type but the original SFR was to comply with the IRC. Nothing has been submitted yet for completing the project so I want to nip this in the butt before they plan too far ahead.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a duplex, whats the issue. IRC. see a lot of these at CRB's place. ;)
 
Re: SFR?

I gave the zoning officer heads up on this one and he will be doing research and calling the borough attorney for guidance. Until this is approved by zoning (again) I will not be issuing a permit.

The original permit was for the structure only with skin and windows. It was submitted to both zoning and building as a SFR. The work under the permit is almost done as the frame is up and the skin is 99% complete.

The owner knows he was going to pull a 2nd permit to finish it into a SFR. There were no details as to how the 2nd floor apartment was to be laid out. There were no signed contracts to finish the 2nd floor apartment at all. The permit was strictly for the frame and skin of the pole building. During construction, the owner was to start working on getting the bids and specs for the interior portion of the building which would include fire separation between garage and dwelling, electrical, energy, mechanical, plumbing , building, etc.

This is not complete. Of an interesting fact, the frame and skin were issued under the IRC & IBC 2006 due to its construction type. Now the interior and egress portions will be under the 2009 IRC (unless that changes) because he did not have a signed contract to build or design prior to the change of the year and the original contract and permit was for the frame/skin only. I will cannot legally allow this to fall under the 2006 IRC if the IRC at all. We will see.

I am hoping that this dies in zoning.

If not this is how I am looking at it.

The 2nd floor apartment is a dwelling unit and he already has a tenant lined up. The other half that he plans on occupying does not meet the definition of dwelling unit as it only has a bathroom and is not intended for eating, sleeping, cooking, etc.

My initial concern at first was of fire separation between garage and the SFR (dwelling above). Now my concern is fire separation between the separate occupancies.

This is not an accessory building because it is not accessory to a SFR on the same lot. It is it's own builiding and has a gross square footage of 4,800 for this 40 x 60 building.

If it does not meet the definition of "dwelling unit" then I believe I may not have any choice but to place this as a commercial structure.

I am weighing the options and reading the book intently.

This is a good one. All opinions are welcome.

The 1st floor is the private garage of the owner.
 
Re: SFR?

kilitact said:
Sounds like a duplex, whats the issue. IRC. see a lot of these at CRB's place. ;)
Click to expand...
It can't be a duplex if there is only 1 dwelling unit. The other side will have a bathroom and no bedroom or kitchen and does not met the definition.

I know I will have at least 2 electric meters to comply with the energy code.
 
Re: SFR?

Not to cast aspursions on the good people of PA, but I would lay odds it's a duplex-in-waiting.

Waiting for the CofO before the kitchen goes into the other side... Wouldn't be the first, wouldn't be the last.
 
Re: SFR?

John Drobysh said:
Not to cast aspursions on the good people of PA, but I would lay odds it's a duplex-in-waiting. Waiting for the CofO before the kitchen goes into the other side... Wouldn't be the first, wouldn't be the last.
Click to expand...
I discussed this exact situation with the zoning officer.

I will put stipulations in the C of O to include annual inspections. We can do that in PA ya know! ;)
 
Re: SFR?

Jeff, not meaning to get off topic, but what is a garage if it's not an accessory to an SFR? It can be attached and be accessory. It's certainly not a dwelling. Dwellings are not required by code to have a garage.
 
Re: SFR?

High Desert said:
Jeff, not meaning to get off topic, but what is a garage if it's not an accessory to an SFR? It can be attached and be accessory. It's certainly not a dwelling. Dwellings are not required by code to have a garage.
Click to expand...
There is no definition of "Garage" or "Accessory area", only "Accessory structure" which it is not since it is built as part of, actually under the dwelling unit.

The other half of the 2nd floor is not by definition a dwelling unit so what is it?

Can this still be a SFR?
 
Re: SFR?

It is an Occupancy Group R-3 in IBC. It is IBC because it exceeds the IRC prescriptive path overall. It may comply with IRC in portions but it would be a two dwelling unit with one garage with required separation between the two dwelling units. If the garage is to be used by only one dwelling unit then the stairs to the garage shall be accessed by that dwelling unit.

It would be a duplex where the owner occupies one of the units.

Although the code may be complied, zoning is a separate issue from the code and shall also be complied with. Additional off-street parking may be required based on zoning requirements if off-street is required and duplexes are permitted. So, zoning would have to be re-evaluated and new permits would need to be issued and construction shall stop at completion of what is approved to be completed with the permits already issued and according to already approved portions of plans. Such changes will need to be made at owner/contractor expense wherever applies and any required fire-rated separation shall be made.

Now, zoning compliance shall be made as well as code. Stamped plans may be required.
 
Re: SFR?

Jar546 wrote:

It can't be a duplex if there is only 1 dwelling unit. The other side will have a bathroom and no bedroom or kitchen and does not met the definition.I know I will have at least 2 electric meters to comply with the energy code.
Click to expand...
Jeff, if the "second" unit doesn't meet the definition for living space, have the applicant note the use of each space on the plans. I see a SFR, using the IRC. Whats up with the requirment for two meters out of the energy code?? :?
 
Re: SFR?

Since the garage is not for the use of the dwelling unit it can't be accessory to it. IBC unless it turns into a duplex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top