• 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.

Shipping Containers used as perm storage

H

Hook#3287

REGISTERED
Joined
Jul 2, 2021
Messages
7
Location
Mass
These are being set up all over the place w/o permits, or even contact with the Building Department. Previous Building Commissioners did not enforce.

In one town I commision in, several property owners have them, some have several, on the main street for everyone to see. I notified all property owners in the Business District (the main street) the containers were required to be installed under a permit as structures. I've required they all be permitted by code, approved by planning according to zoning, or removed.

One Marijuana grower wants to install 2 for "drying". This proposal is not a concern, as the owner is following all my requirements for "Attachment" by installing piers with hardware. I told him to show me why the structures (shipping containers) were exempt. He didn't. Probably easier and less expense to attach. My reasoning is they are electrified.

That's my question here. Would you require ground attachment of storage containers, as you would any other structure, or consider them exempt?

I've requested engineering showing they meet wind load w/o attachment, but no one has come forward with it yet.

I don't want to put undue financial burden on anyone, but meeting code and safety is the goal.
 
There may be zoning considerations but the focus here is on the building code. What is the legal basis for saying that the building code applies?

You talk about "your requirements" but my understanding is that the building officials job is to enforce the properly adopted laws not his or her own personal requirements? What are the formally adopted laws?

How long must the shipping container be in one location before they must comply with the building code? What about a trucking company that has a shipping container on their lot that has been there for a year?

If we are concerned about the need for anchorage to resist wind loads of individual containers why should we not be concerned about the lack of anchorage of the containers on a truck?

You are concerned about the anchorage but what code provisions would apply to establish integrity of the containers.
 
I think you are going to have to dig a little deeper to find a reason to regulate them. I agree with Mark, sounds like you are letting your personal feelings overrule your code book.

How long can an inoperative vehicle be parked at the curb? If they run power to it, how is that different than Cousin Suzie who came to visit in her RV and is getting power from the house? Is it allowed as an accessory structure? Taking up parking spaces? Storing hazardous materials? Too close to prop line or another building?
 
shop.iccsafe.org

ICC G5-2019 Guideline for the Safe Use of ISO Intermodal Shipping Containers Repurposed as Buildings and Building Components

Would you like more information about ICC eBooks? Click here to learn more about this format where you can have full functionality for your books both online and offline.
shop.iccsafe.org shop.iccsafe.org

More than 30 million International Organization for Standardization (ISO) intermodal shipping containers are in use around the world today. These containers were built to ISO standards and maintained to standards defined by the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) “Convention for Safe Containers.”

New or used, containers are now repurposed at a pace that makes their reuse a multi-billion-dollar global industry. Containers are regularly repurposed and converted into International Residential Code and International Building Code occupancy uses. As a building material, the applications are widely diverse as is the extent to which the container is used as a structural building element.

Local jurisdictions and state administrative programs are reacting to the growing trend of shipping container repurposing but can be behind in terms of regulations and compliance. This ICC Guideline is intended to help state and local jurisdictions as well as owners, architects, builders and engineers in their assessment as to how to design, review and approve shipping containers as a building element.
 
My opinion (requirement) is they are structures, as defined in IBC as "that which is built or constructed". Structures in my state, over 120 sq ft in a commercial setting and over 200 sq ft in a residential setting, are required to be permitted.

No one has challenged that opinion as of yet. I welcome the challenge and a appeal to the Mass BBRS for clarification. Every discussion I have, I state, "Show me were they are exempt". No one has.

I also consider a over the road trailer, permanently set on a site, as a structure. If it's registered and inspected correctly, it's not permanent.

I've noticed those "PODS" for moving that get dropped off at structures appear to be under 120 sq ft, although I've never measured one.

RV's, trucks and vehicles are regulated by the DMV for safety and under zoning for sighting. While I am the Zoning Enforcement Officer, that is not my reason. The zoning is only brought in due to the structures are in the business zone, which does require planning site review before permit is issued.

The electrical power would require a panel and/or overhead wires, which would trigger Electrical code. I haven't done the research yet, but my gut tells me any structure that has wires to it should be "attached".

Then there is the "what's in the container" question, and should fire separation be applied?
 
Hey mtlogcabin, thanks for the info.

I did see that earlier this year, but have not got around to getting it yet.

No one has come forward with any plan, outside of the "pot" dryers, that would include occupancy. All are for storage so far.
 
We consider these structures as well. I do not apply the building code, but we do apply zoning to them.

The building code is to ensure safety. I would question what the risks to life safety are for these structures. Certainly not structural. These are stacked several high filled with goods.
 
Would the augur anchors used for mobile homes be adequate in seismic and high wind areas? I suppose foundations might be an issue, but those seem often overlooked in this size building, like sheds.

Got to wonder if you'd be safer in one of these containers during a hurricane than in a lot of houses....
 
Anchorage of some kind of validation as to not blowing away, you can beat frost >400sqft for sure, If you have them "move it" every 6 months, you may be able to squeak "temporary"
 
As for the 120 square foot exemption related to storage and accessory structures, my jurisdiction deleted that everywhere the note occurs. And after you knock the wheels off of anything and remove the registration tags, then it becomes my problem to ensure that the property owner does not have it located in the front yard setback for everyone to complain about. If a storage container of any size is to be put in place less than 180 days, then it is "temporary" as defined by IBC 3103. And if it is to be there 180 days or more, then it is permanent. Either way, I require a permit application along with a site plan showing where this vessel, shipping container, conex box will be located. Regardless of permanent or temporary, I require a detail illustrating how the corners of the thing will be anchored down. I don't care much if it auger anchors or steel straps to concrete piers or wedge anchors to existing concrete slab. I need an anchor detail.
 
steveray said:
Anchorage of some kind of validation as to not blowing away, you can beat frost >400sqft for sure, If you have them "move it" every 6 months, you may be able to squeak "temporary"
Click to expand...
Curious if it has electricity and they move it every 6 months, new electrical permit? I suppose a cord and plug would solve it.

How much or far would you require they move it? A 20' box on a 40' pad, back and forth? (Lot of f'ing work to avoid a permit, I admit.) I bought a piece of rural property in a river and thought about a used railroad car on rails twice the length of car. With composting toilet, would not be hard. If I could avoid zoning as well as building code, I could put it close to river instead of set back 50' from high water.... A lot of trailers already along river and close.
 
I've brought this issue up at my city a few times and received different answers each time. I see it as a use and occupancy type of concern. I'll use two different sites as an example.

One is a private lot owned by a construction company and they've got about a dozen on their site for storage. No power or utilities, only a few employees ever go into them and not for any length of time. They get what they need and lock them back up. This one was ignored by the city.

Another is a cannabis facility (also a private lot) with 8 or so containers all powered up and many employees coming and going all day, often spending prolonged periods of time working inside. This one was required to get permits and they are all properly anchored to the ground and have proper electrical installations.

The logic is pretty straight forward. We are in a high seismic zone and in a big quake those things start bouncing around. In the first scenario there's no utilities connected, and a relatively low chance of someone being in or near the container at the time of the earthquake. In the second scenario there are electrical connections and a relatively high chance of the containers being occupied if there were a large earthquake.
 
In your second example … do you require ADA access to the containers? Ramps? Ventilation, lighting, egress hardware on the doors?
 
Hook#3287 said:
No one has challenged that opinion as of yet. I welcome the challenge and a appeal to the Mass BBRS for clarification. Every discussion I have, I state, "Show me were they are exempt". No one has.
Click to expand...
That is asking for proof of a negative.

Once the containers are recognized as a structure as defined in the building code, the door is open for more of them. Better to classify containers as urban blight.
 
e hilton said:
In your second example … do you require ADA access to the containers? Ramps? Ventilation, lighting, egress hardware on the doors?
Click to expand...
Most of the containers are essentially freezers outside of the building in a gravel lot. So basically no. They are accessed by employees only and are storage. The only time employees "work" in there for any length of time is to organize or rearrange. I don't remember the specific provisions the BO at the time used, but she determined that no special modifications needed to be made for ADA. The units were factory built to be freezers so they just needed to be wired for power.
 
The IEBC is attempting to address these in more detail, but is still confusing. MT, I didn't know about the ICC 500. I am gong to get that to help clarify the issue.
 
The rest of the facility is all purpose built with modern ADA for multiple tenants. The one unit that installed the "freezers" is an extraction facility that processes fresh/frozen cannabis and big surprise all the product comes in at once and they needed a place to keep it all while they work through it. So they walk out to the freezer and grab a tote or a garbage bag full of product, run it through the extractor, then dump it in the compost and go get another batch. I think the extractors process about 10 pounds at a time and they have 6 or 8 that they run in rotation. I think they can process over a 100 pounds a day with a 4 person crew. So they are in and out of the containers for normal operations. When new loads come in they have to make it all fit and may spend awhile moving everything around.
 
e hilton said:
Get an old caboose, market it as a historical bnb. Make them cook over a hobo campfire.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the prices of retired cabooses, not counting transport, roadbed, etc? I may look again but seems wayorec
mtlogcabin said:
This is in an area of the state with no code enforcement

View attachment 8300
Click to expand...
Not enforced, but there is a code that has been adopted? State I would presume.
 
(1) Except as provided in subsection (5), the state building code, as defined in 50-60-203(3), does not apply to:

(a) residential buildings containing less than five dwelling units or their attached-to structures, any farm or ranch building of any size, and any private garage or private storage structure of any size used only for the owner's own use, located within a county, city, or town, unless the local legislative body by ordinance or resolution makes the state building code applicable to these structures;

Subsection (5) is the energy code adoption
 
Temporary structures require a permit, so moving them every 179 days could get expense, especially if you need to hire the move out.

After reading the replies, nothing has changed my opinion these are structures and I will continue to require applications for a permit.

I also decided I'm going to require anchorage for all.

Back in 2011, there was a tornado that came through town just about 500 yards from where most of these are located. I don't know if anchorage would have made any difference if they were hit, but it can't hurt.

"auger anchors or steel straps to concrete piers or wedge anchors to existing concrete slab" sounds right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top