|
| Author |
Message |
keljohnso
Member
|
# Posted: 29 Sep 2014 16:13 - Edited by: keljohnso
Reply
The building inspector says that because I have a bathroom and a kitchen my 192 sq.ft building is considered a dwelling.
All I have in the kitchen is a counter with a sink. We have no cabinets and we use a LP camp stove.
The bathroom has a vanity, a shower pan, and a chair with a bucket for "going" in.
Is what I have even technically a kitchen and bath?
|
|
keljohnso
Member
|
# Posted: 29 Sep 2014 16:17
Reply
I'm not sure what happened to the pics...
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 29 Sep 2014 20:07 - Edited by: bldginsp
Reply
The three things that are required in a building, that make it a dwelling, are heating, cooking, and toilet/washing facilities. Whether a building that has some combination of these is technically a dwelling depends upon the judgement and discretion of the building official. The code gives the building official the last word in deciding whether a building is a dwelling or not.
From a code perspective, the issue is the actual use of the building, and the relative danger involved to those using it. A dwelling poses more danger to people than a storage shed, so has many more rules.
If they want to call it a dwelling, I'm afraid that's end of story. You could try to argue the point, but if you are cooking, sleeping, and using a bathroom in the building, they will say the actual use is as a dwelling, even with a camp stove, bucket, and a sleeping bag rather than a huge kitchen stove, fancy flush toilet, and a $2,000 mattress on a pencil post bed.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 29 Sep 2014 21:15
Reply
Yes you have a dwelling. I copied this from some local documanrts pertaining to building codes.... More or less the same wording can be found in virtually all jurisdictions.
"Dwelling shall mean any building, structure, manufactured, modular or mobile home which is wholly or partly used or intended to be used for living or sleeping by human occupants"
If your inspector doesn't call you out on the bucket in the bathroom you should consider yourself lucky on that.
~~~~
Note: The International Building Code (IBC) applies to all structures, except for one and two family dwellings, more or less. If you are in Virginia the code used by the state for one or two family residences is the IRC, the International Residential Code.
An online version of the IRC is Here.
A Virginia specific code can be found Here. It is the 2009 code as adopted by the state. I am NOT sure if they still use the 2009 or have moved on to the 2012 version.
FYI, the first link to the IRC is the entire code. Each state can adopt a code and make changes to it, leave sections out, and so on. A local jurisdiction can make their code more restrictive than the state code, but can not make the local code less stringent than the state rules.
Then it comes down to a matter of local enforcement. There can also be differences of interpretation between the inspector and the builder. There are cases where the inspector is wrong. Those can be appealed to a higher level. If the code actually permits something the inspector is against, an appeal can be successful if done in a unemotional clear and concise manner.
Unfortunately for you, in this case I believe the inspector is correct. Get a copy of the rule that pertains. Sometimes it is found most easily on the application for a building permit. Here in NM it is quite clear that a permit is needed for any building that is used as a habitat.
|
|
Don_P
Member
|
# Posted: 29 Sep 2014 22:56
Reply
We are using the 2012 in VA now, I don't believe there is a free online link up yet.
The '09 VA code is here, You'll probably be most interested in chapter 3 of the IRC;
http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/Virginia2009/09Virginia_main.html
|
|
keljohnso
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 13:46
Reply
International Building Code Definitions
DWELLING UNIT. A single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.
Virginia Building Code Definitions
BATHROOM GROUP
A group of fixtures, including or
excluding a bidet, consisting of a water closet, lavatory, and
bathtub or shower. Such fixtures are located together on the
same floor level.
KITCHEN.
Kitchen shall mean an area used, or designated to
be used, for the preparation of food.
__________________
And although its not VA...
Sonoma County CA Definition
Kitchen
A kitchen means an area within a structure
that is used or designed to be used for the preparation
or cooking of food and that contains one or both of the following:
1.Cooking appliances or rough in facilities including, but not limited to: ovens, convection ovens, stoves, stove tops, built-in grills or microwave ovens or similar appliances,
240 volt electrical outlets or any gas lines.
OR
2.A sink less than 18 inches in depth with a waste line drain 1-½ inches or greater in diameter AND a refrigerator exceeding five (5) cubic feet in capacity or space opening with an electrical outlet that may reasonably
be used for a refrigerator exceeding five (5)
cubic feet in capacity.
__________________
So without heating, a toilet, and a means of cooking, its not a dwelling.
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 13:58 - Edited by: bldginsp
Reply
It's a dwelling because you are using it as a dwelling. You are dwelling in it.
The building code gives the building official the power to decide what the actual use of the building is. I'd be interested to hear what they say when you present this argument to them.
I think basically what they'll say is yes, you are right, you have not met the minimum requirements for a dwelling unit, but you are using the building as a dwelling unit without meeting minimum requirements for doing so. What they want you to do is get a permit and show how you are going to meet minimum requirements for using the building as a dwelling.
Good luck.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 14:19 - Edited by: MtnDon
Reply
Quoting: keljohnso So without heating, a toilet, and a means of cooking, its not a dwelling.
The building officials can counter that with their argument that if the building is used to sleep in or is intended to be used to sleep in, even part time, then it is a dwelling. Period.
Then they could refer to different sections of the code that call for minimum floor spaces, proper sanitation facilities (septic), space heating and more. And more. And red tag you on all the faults they can come up with. That's without even looking at the foundation and the balance of the construction.
Good luck on your quest.
The code does not always make sense for all situations. Some inspectors are more pliant than others. But you still run into things that on the surface do not make sense. I just ran across someone with an off grid PV system at their cabin. Their inspector made them install a meter socket because the code book called for it.
|
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 14:34
Reply
Don- this situation actually does make perfect sense from the building code perspective. The reason for minimum requirements for housing is to prevent 'substandard' housing such as the tenements of New York and Chicago around 1900. If the building is used as a dwelling, it must meet what are judged to be 'habitable' conditions. There's no doubt in this case that it is being used as a dwelling, as you pointed out. Their argument will be that it is substandard housing.
But many jurisdictions get around this for seasonal or occasional use structures in one way or another. Why should you have to meet all the permanent residential requirements for a vacation use building that is no different from camping for a week in a tent? But the code does not address the issue of 'temporary' except in the case of hotels. It probably doesn't because it's impossible to define 'temporary' in a workable manner.
I think this is a serious hole in the building code that ought to be addressed. We have a longstanding tradition all over North America of seasonal, occasional, vacation use structures, so why should they be held to the standard of homes in the city? The main answer to that is that temporary becomes permanent, and before you know it you have a family living year round in a building that was only meant as a bunkie. It's a problem.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 16:35
Reply
Substandard was the word I couldn't think of. 
Pennsylvania has special rules for what they call recreation cabins, or something like that. Special rules have somewhat relaxed rules. The owner has to swear that they will never occupy it full time and go along with other restrictions. It makes perfect sense. I believe the sanitation rules remain the same, but don't call that gospel just because I said it. I believe there are also some such special rules in a few other places, but memory fails me.
If we don't like the rules where we live or want to build we can always use the system to lobby for change. Or move. I'm not saying that will be a success every time, but it does work at times.
I agree that a problem part of exemptions like PA has can be that at a later date someone will want to make it a permanent home. And there are those who will misrepresent their plans in order to get a 'temporary' use building built, while all along planning on subverting the intent of the part time use rules.
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 18:02
Reply
Agreed, and how many people have I seen who bought a house not realizing that part of it was built without permits, then they get saddled with the cost of repairs. The seller has the legal obligation of disclosure but that doesn't mean they will disclose, and if they don't there really is little legal remedy for the new owners- spend your money on lawyers, or spend it to fix the house. Real estate agents are motivated to sell, not to disclose info that might stop the sale.
Perhaps the only way to do it is to attach something to the title so that buyers have to become aware of what they are buying.
How many legal hoops and cost to the taxpayers are the public willing to tolerate so that a limited number of people can build their vacation homes with lax rules?
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 18:17 - Edited by: MtnDon
Reply
Quoting: bldginsp Perhaps the only way to do it is to attach something to the title so that buyers have to become aware of what they are buying.
I believe that is what happens in PA. The owner / builder signs an affidavit that is submitted to some level of government. There are strings and rules attached. I believe that is attached to the property tax file, so it would be public record. It seems most other places take the approach of using and enforcing the IRC for everything.
Quoting: bldginsp How many legal hoops and cost to the taxpayers are the public willing to tolerate so that a limited number of people can build their vacation homes with lax rules?
How many times have you seen cabin builders profess how much they would like to live at their cabin full time?
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 18:19
Reply
I plan to retire in mine.....
|
|
keljohnso
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 18:26
Reply
The inspector has already called the second building a storage building even knowing there will be 2 beds in it so I won't need a permit. Maybe he'll work with me on this. We'll see.
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 18:35
Reply
I wonder if Cabinbuilder had the slightest idea of what he was getting into when he built this site?   
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 18:42 - Edited by: bldginsp
Reply
That's good news keljohnso. You aren't the first to do what you are doing and many jurisdictions recognize that full dwelling unit rules are not necessary or desireable for recreational, seasonal use situations. So there are a lot of different approaches in different localities. What I usually suggest is that you research the local planning ordinances (zoning laws) to see what they have in the rules. If you can find a cooperative planner at the county government office they might point you straight to a rule that allows certain activities in certain circumstances.
Could be they want you to put in a septic. If they will allow everything else you are doing if you put in a septic, I'd move heaven and earth to put in that septic. Ask them if that makes a difference- often it is the deciding factor, since it is the major health issue with people living on their land.
Good luck and keep us posted!
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Sep 2014 19:05
Reply
Keep in mind the inspector was hired to enforce rules. If he bends rules that can come back to bite him... Let's say he lets the main structure through; issues a certificate of occupancy. Another person who has seen yours builds another just like yours. The inspector denies it. The new builder complains and points a finger at yours..... That could impact his performance review and a lot more. So if he enforces rules as written it should not be a surprise.
Anyone else you know who wants to build a vacation only part time residence? Think about approaching the governing body with the idea of a PA-like exemption?
|
|
keljohnso
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Oct 2014 12:12
Reply
I contacted the inspector. He's still calling it a dwelling. Thats no problem. I'm going to get the permit Friday.
If I knew before I built it that I needed one, I would have gotten one. I wasn't trying to get away with anything, I just didn't want to tear it down.
It'll all work out...
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Oct 2014 12:22
Reply
Did the inspector discuss with you what they will require in order to permit the building as a dwelling? Septic? Foundation? Structural requirements? Approved water source?
|
|
keljohnso
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Oct 2014 16:25
Reply
Not yet. I'm picking up the building permit Friday. I guess he'll go back out and let me know.
I asked him a few questions and told him kinda how I built things. He seemed ok with it. I might have to add joist hangers to the decks, no problem though.
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Oct 2014 16:47
Reply
If that's all you have to do, that's great. Keep us posted.
|
|
|
