Building code for rural recreational/sportsmans' cabins

- Forums - Register/Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -

Small Cabin Forum / Properties / Building code for rural recreational/sportsmans' cabins


Author	Message
bldginsp Member	# Posted: 15 May 2016 01:57pm - Edited by: bldginsp Reply Many members on this forum have lamented the confusing array of requirements encountered by them in their counties, provinces, districts or whatever when they want to build a small cabin. There is no uniformity between different jurisdictions regarding how this is done. A partial solution to this would be if the building code had a specific provision for this. Which, of course, opens numerous cans of worms. So anyway I gave it a shot and banged out a proposed code appendix that jurisdictions could approve if they choose to. It's just a first draft- I'll tweek it later before I send it in as a code proposal- so if you care to read some boring code language and comment I'd appreciate the input. Here's a summary for those of you that don't want to read the fine print: Allows construction of a 400 square foot cabin with no structural requirements or structural inspections (foundations, framing, etc.). But, you can only use it for a max of 120 days a year, and you have to either have an approved septic system or install a vault privy. Water for drinking sourced on site must be approved by the health department. You still have to get a permit for the cabin, but all it covers is basic safety features like egress and smoke detectors. A permit is required for any plumbing, heating and electrical. Appendix X Rural Recreational/Sportsmans' Cabins (RRSC) Section RRSC 101 Scope RRSC 101.1 General. These provisions shall be applicable only to a rural recreational/sportsman's cabin constructed on privately owned (nonrental) parcels and shall apply to the following: 1. Construction, alteration, addition and repair of any rural recreational/sportsman's cabin, as defined by this code. 2. Construction, installation, addition, alteration, repair of any building service equipment as defined by this code. SECTION RRSC 201 DEFINITIONS AHJ. Authority having jurisdiction. BUILDING SERVICE EQUIPMENT. Refers to the plumbing, mechanical and electrical equipment, including piping, wiring, fixtures and other accessories which provide sanitation, lighting, heating, ventilation, cooling, and facilities essential for the habitable occupancy of a rural recreational/sportsman's cabin. RURAL. The authority having jurisdiction shall have the authority to determine whether any given property is defined as rural. Property owners may appeal such determination to the local board of appeals. RURAL RECREATIONAL/SPORTSMAN'S CABIN (RRSC). A structure used for human habitation in a rural location, which meets the requirements of this code. VAULT PRIVY. A below-ground structure meant for the containment of human waste, either permanently or until removed by approved means. Such structure must be water tight to prevent leakage into the surrounding soil or water table. The privy must be vented to allow movement of air in the containment chamber. SECTION RRSC 301 LIMITATIONS RRSC 301.1 SIZE. A rural recreational/sportsman's cabin may not exceed 400 square feet floor area including second floors and lofts. RRSC 301.2 NUMBER. Only one rural recreational/sportsman's cabin is allowed per parcel. Other non-habitable structures may be allowed by the AHJ. RRSC 301.3 USE. A rural recreational/sportsman's cabin may be used for human habitation only 120 days total, cumulative, in any calendar year by any and all occupants. The 120 days need not be consecutive. A rural recreational/sportsman's cabin may not be used as permanent residence, a business location, or as any type of rental, or be used as a residential or business mailing address. RRSC 301.4 AFFIDAVIT. The property owner shall sign an affidavit confirming compliance with this code. Such affidavit shall be recorded with the property deed before permit final. RRSC 301.5 SEWAGE AND GREYWATER DISPOSAL/CONTAINMENT. An approved sewage disposal or containment system must be installed. Grey water must be disposed of in an approved manner. RRSC 301.5.1 SEPTIC SYSTEM. If the building has a plumbing drain that carries sewage waste, an approved septic system must be installed. RRSC 301.5.2 COMPOSTING TOILET/VAULT PRIVY. If the building does not have a drain that carries sewage waste, a composting toilet or vault containment privy must be installed in accordance with this code. RRSC 301.5.2.1 COMPOSTING TOILET. Any composting toilet, or composting toilet system, must be approved by the local health authority. RRSC 301.5.2.2 VAULT PRIVY. Such structure must be water tight to prevent leakage into the surrounding soil or water table. Only human waste shall be deposited in the vault privy. The vault privy shall be maintained in a sanitary condition. The vault privy must be vented to allow movement of air in the containment chamber. The AHJ may require inspection of the construction of the vault privy to ensure that it is water tight. When a vault privy is emptied of its contents, an approved service or method must be used. The minimum containment size for a vault privy shall be 55 gallons (200 liters). RRSC 301.5.3 GREY WATER. If the building has a plumbing drain that carries only non-sewage waste (grey water), a water drainage system must be installed that prevents waste water from coming to the surface of the earth. Presence of waste water on the surface of the earth at any time shall be cause for the AHJ to revoke occupancy of the cabin for human habitation, in accordance with local health provisions. Grey water may not be directed to a vault privy. RRSC 301.6 DRINKING WATER. If drinking water is sourced on the property in any way other than carried onto the property from an outside source, the water source must be approved by the local health department. Water sourced on site which is not used for drinking is not required to be from an approved source. SECTION RRSC 401 PERMITS RRSC 401.1 BUILDING PERMIT. A building permit shall be required for a rural recreational/sportsman's cabin. A plot plan shall be submitted showing location of cabin on parcel, and other information as required by the AHJ and this code. No structural plans or structural inspections will be required. The owner is responsible for compliance with structural requirements of the local building codes. RRSC 401.1.1 BUILDING PERMIT SAFETY PROVISIONS. A rural recreational/sportsman's cabin shall incorporate all features for the following aspects of construction as required by the local building code, and these shall be shown on the permit plans: 1-Light, ventilation and heating. 2-Emergency escape and rescue openings. 3-Means of egress. 4-Smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms. RRSC 401.2 ELECTRICAL PERMIT. A permit and inspections shall be obtained for any electrical wiring system as required by the local electrical code. RRSC 401.3 MECHANICAL PERMIT. A permit and inspections shall be obtained for any mechanical heating, cooling, or ventilation system as required by the local mechanical code. RRSC 401.3 PLUMBING PERMIT. A permit and inspections shall be obtained for any plumbing system as required by the local plumbing code. Exception- the only plumbing required in a rural recreational/sportsman's cabin is that required in Section 301 of this code. .

DaveBell Moderator	# Posted: 15 May 2016 04:38pm - Edited by: DaveBell Reply "RRSC 301.3 USE", not enforceable. Delete. "RRSC 301.5 SEWAGE AND GREYWATER DISPOSAL/CONTAINMENT". "RRSC 301.5.1 SEPTIC SYSTEM". Whether Grey water or Septic, some codes require 1000 gallon tank (18 ea. 55 gal barrels for 1-3 people). Way overkill. Here is an opportunity to specify 400 gallon tank. "Grey water must be disposed of in an approved manner". Subjective. "vault privy shall be maintained in a sanitary condition". Subjective.

DaveBell Moderator	# Posted: 15 May 2016 04:47pm - Edited by: DaveBell Reply I would like to see a current code and then modified language to be able to compare. Current code mods only. Then statement that all other parts of the IRC must be met. This is a good idea, the code lords think single family dwelling down to deer stand size need all the same requirements. A new defined size of 400 SF is a good idea. Thanks for taking this on! I'll help as I can. I was a specification writer years ago.

bldginsp Member	# Posted: 15 May 2016 05:33pm Reply DaveBell- thanks for the responses. -'use' is unenforceable as you say, except that it prevents it being used as a full time residence. Pretty obvious if they are living there full time. -If a septic is required, it's best to leave septic requirements as they are. Remember we have to convince reluctant health officials to get on board. But I specified nothing for a greywater tank- just that water doesn't get on the ground. -Yes a lot of it is subjective, but that gives the AHJ a fairly broad range for enforcement if they encounter a funky situation. This has to give them that, or they won't be on board. It's a balancing act.

Julie2Oregon Member	# Posted: 15 May 2016 07:43pm Reply Who's going to enforce usage to 120 days/year in a rural/remote area? Or is that the point? When I began my odyssey of wanting to move to the PNW, I first looked at Washington State because I have friends in/near Seattle. The "recreational" designation for awesome cabins became a thorn in my side. These places had the small square footage that I wanted, were beautifully turned out and equipped, had solar and wind power, and upscale composting toilets and greywater systems. You could live in them comfortably year-round but they were sitting on the market because of the recreational designation. They were too pricey and the location was wrong for a "recreational" cabin but, legally, you couldn't make them a full-time residence. I, and I'm sure many other people, would have bought them in a heartbeat if you could. I'm guessing that the owners put such care and expense into these small cabins with the intent of keeping them and because they liked the locations. But when they had to sell, they were stuck. And people like myself who are looking for a small cabin to live in fulltime can't take the chance on a "recreational" designation. Happily, it's not as common in Oregon. Even so, a Realtor warned me to stay away from a Recreational designation and make darn well sure a cabin doesn't have one. It opens up a huge can of worms in many respects. From an owner's standpoint, I don't know that I'd want to build a cabin under the Recreational designation. It restricts what you can do with your own property. Maybe there are people around who are watching how often you're there. Maybe not. But it's not something I'd want to have to worry about. And if I wanted to move there full-time, that should be my prerogative; if I wanted or needed to sell, I should have options.

Julie2Oregon Member	# Posted: 15 May 2016 07:47pm Reply Oh, and this has been on my mind since one of the cabins for sale on my list is in a resort area and was described as a "sportsman's cabin." I had to check on the zoning and designation. It was, indeed, rural residential but just having that in the description sent up a red flag for me.

bldginsp Member	# Posted: 15 May 2016 08:23pm Reply Thanks Julie- yes the 120 day recreational rule is very restrictive. The other side of the coin is that jurisdictions will always want any full time residence to meet all the requirements. So this is a way for someone to build a non- permanent structure for recreation use with limited requirements, while at the same time preventing kids from being raised in sub-standard housing. If people want to build a recreational cabin with really nice and expensive features, obviously they can do so, but maybe they are better off spending that money on a permanent residence, in the long run.

Julie2Oregon Member	# Posted: 15 May 2016 08:35pm - Edited by: Julie2Oregon Reply bldginsp, I'm thinking of what you wrote in terms of Oregon and even for a recreational cabin, there would HAVE to be a bunch of requirements and inspections. If you build anything over 225 feet in my county, for instance, you're looking at seismic code requirements. Plus, Oregon adds fire, energy, and other codes to the IBC. I'd imagine other states are similar and add whatever they need or want to add for their particular situation. Wind speed and flooding are particular concerns in Texas. Could be why there aren't that many "recreational" cabins. Either build to residential code or build somewhere where no one cares what you're building or that you're building at all, lol. ***Edited to add: One thing you might want to consider is adjusting the square footage? It seems that even for hunting cabins, a lot of people want something bigger than 400 sq. ft. because they bring along a bunch of friends/family on trips. I noticed you stipulated that's area/living space and not footprint so even a 16 X 20 cabin with a loft would exceed 400 sq. ft. That's not much room if you have a lot of friends with whom you hunt or fish.

MtnDon Member	# Posted: 15 May 2016 09:16pm Reply I don't recall Pennsylvania having any sq ft limits in their recreational cabin act. It's a relatively simple exemption to the normal building code, without a lot of if's and's or but's. Here's a link to the form the landowner must submit. Maybe look up the statute... Penn UCC Act 92 of 2004 Wind, seismic, snow varies so much around the country this is a state by state thing.

Don_P Member	# Posted: 15 May 2016 09:41pm - Edited by: Don_P Reply Julie, those situations you are describing would, and should, fall under the current code. But, for a small simple, part time... recreational cabin, this would provide a less restrictive option.

Don_P Member	# Posted: 16 May 2016 08:57am - Edited by: Don_P Reply As Julie pointed out, think carefully about whether you want to use this path. If you want to sell the property, the structure severely limits the pool of prospective buyers. The building is very likely a dead loss and would need to be removed to move the land... but that's what under the radar structures likely are already. The vault needs to be large enough to hold a cost effective quantity in terms of bringing in the pump truck... if it costs too much to pump a 55 gallon drum folks aren't going to do it and will move to a pit or something unapprovable where I think they would be more apt to if it was less frequent for that same minimum charge... and then there's living around an old pile of poo, anyway think about it both ways. The vault sounds like a good methane generator for light and heat :D I like something along the lines of the floor height provision and some of the other language in the exceptions here. SECTION R403 FOOTINGS R403.1 General. All exterior walls shall be supported on continuous solid or fully grouted masonry or concrete footings, wood foundations, or other approved structural systems that shall be of sufficient design to accommodate all loads according to Section R301 and to transmit the resulting loads to the soil within the limitations as determined from the character of the soil. Footings shall be supported on undisturbed natural soils or engineered fill. Exceptions: 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, not exceeding 256 square feet (23.7824 m2) of building area, provided all of the following conditions are met: 1.1. The building eave height is 10 feet or less. 1.2. The maximum height from the finished floor level to grade does not exceed 18 inches. 1.3. The supporting structural elements in direct contact with the ground shall be placed level on firm soil and when such elements are wood they shall be approved pressure preservative treated suitable for ground contact use. 1.4. The structure is anchored to withstand wind loads as required by this code. 1.5. The structure shall be of light-frame construction whose vertical and horizontal structural elements are primarily formed by a system of repetitive wood or light gauge steel framing members, with walls and roof of light weight material, not slate, tile, brick or masonry. 2. Footings are not required for ramps serving dwelling units in Group R-3 and R-5 occupancies where the height of the entrance is no more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade.

bldginsp Member	# Posted: 16 May 2016 01:00pm Reply Good input Don. I think I'm going to research as many code examples regarding recreation cabins as I can from different areas and try to come up with a smorgy type of approach- where jurisdictions that choose to approve such an ordinance can choose which aspects they want to, and leave the rest.

Don_P Member	# Posted: 17 May 2016 08:44am Reply That would have the greatest chance, or would give whatever committee the full range to work with. A relatively uniform standard would work better in this day of sharing plans and knowledge more broadly. Another point was brought up overnight. A recreational cabin is not "shelter" in the traditional sense, it is a playground for those who are better off. If the bar is lowered, more people can invade that playground. In other words do the current codes help keep that playground exclusive. Is the complaining gratuitous and there really is no need or actual desire for this standard? Interesting twist. Another from the VA code; R303.9 Required heating. When the winter design temperature in Table R301.2(1) is below 60°F (16°C), every dwelling unit shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a minimum room temperature of 68°F (20°C) at a point 3 feet (914 mm) above the floor and 2 feet (610 mm) from exterior walls in all habitable rooms at the design temperature. The installation of one or more portable space heaters shall not be used to achieve compliance with this section. Exception: Seasonal structures not used as a primary residence for more than 90 days per year, unless rented, leased or let on terms expressed or implied to furnish heat, shall not be required to comply with this section.

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 17 May 2016 08:53am - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech Reply In my state, a cabin must meet requirements, same as permanent residence. Insulation must meet specs, but only if its heated. Heated is required for permanent, but not for temp. If its not heated, no issue. Its best to make the insulation to specs, so you could easily covert it to full time if you had to. Also, for lower taxes, if its used 60 days a year or less, taxes are much lower (in my cabin county anyway). This is to make it affordable, its not as expensive as owning 2 full time residence. Otherwise, many folks could be priced out of the cabin life. And my county appreciated the extra revenue anyway. So they make it somewhat easier to do.

Running Wolf Member	# Posted: 17 May 2016 12:17pm Reply bldginsp Great start. Like it for the most part. There are some key elements, conditions, and the like that need addressed, I will address each line per line when at my computer. For now just some thoughts/ideas... 1. The code must take into concideration the human factors, life styles, and families of the occupants. Some would say favoring them as they are the owners, like wise the ones paying for construction, upkeep/maintance, and pays taxes. 2. While limitation are in order, every effort must be made to insure the owner/property owner maximum enjoyment and use he/she sees fit. (IE parcel size is important factor in limitations and needs to be met accordingly. Limiting to "one 400 sq ft per parcel" is some instances is over burdening the owner-points to in-law/guests cabin and the owner of the 100 acre hunting land caught in tempermental weather conditions making chances improbable to safe return to main cabin) 3. The code must be a guild to aid the owner, assist the municipality in aiding owner/builder, limiting areas of intrepritation by municipality in order to prohibit personal prejudice and preferance. (IE inspector does not like premanufactered/company premanufacturing giving preferential treatment to stick build/family,friend, local manufacturer and or builder) 4. A clear defined prohibitation should be in place perventing municipality form requirement to connect to any public/private owned utilies. (In majority of areas provided supplies are owned and/or offered by 1 entity thus creating a monopoly (real and/or inplied) requiring one to aquire service implies coopereation and/or cohesion to serve and benifit one or more institions along with other implications real and/or implied) In all, let us step back and look back to the great things our colonized history has produced from what we now concider rustic, recreational, sportsman cabins, many of days gone by concidered home. Perhaps let us reread Walden and other great works, advice, and morals that has shaped the land and remain strong standards in todays times.

MtnDon Member	# Posted: 17 May 2016 09:23pm - Edited by: MtnDon Reply Do the proponents of a less restrictive recreational use cabin envision the permissive use of such regulations anywhere in a rural setting? And what constitutes rural? There are forest lots near us that are rural in nature in that there is no incorporated town within 20 miles or more. There are a few dozen lots in the 5 to 10 acre size; some larger, many smaller.. Most of those lots are already developed, having electric grid and telephone available, private and some shared wells. Most of the buildings are 1500 - 3000 sq foot homes designed to whatever codes were in effect when they were constructed. Some full time homes, some part time. I'll bet that none of those owners would be pleased to see cheaply built to a lower standard, restricted use cabins popup. Wanting to remove some restrictions will likely see changes to zoning that will still effectively restrict where a recreational code cabin could be built. Attempting to simplify one thing gets complicated by other existing things. There are always unexpected consequences when changes are proposed/made. ... let it be noted that in many ways I do appreciate the desire for a less regulated class of buildings... however, I can also see the other side.

Borrego Member	# Posted: 17 May 2016 09:45pm Reply Devil's Advocate here....why does the the Gov't have the right to restrict or otherwise govern the construction of a dwelling? Except for public safety, harm to your neighbors etc...not really applicable in remote areas like most of inhabit...

MtnDon Member	# Posted: 17 May 2016 10:18pm Reply Quoting: Borrego not really applicable in remote areas like most of inhabit... How do you define what is remote enough? How close or far does a neighbor have to be from the other neighbor for there to eliminate the cause and effect on others thing? That is what I was trying to introduce into the discussion.

bldginsp Member	# Posted: 17 May 2016 10:29pm Reply Quoting: Borrego why does the the Gov't have the right to restrict or otherwise govern the construction of a dwelling? Only because the voters voted it in. If the voters vote it out, out it goes, and I get an early retirement.

Running Wolf Member	# Posted: 17 May 2016 11:03pm Reply Quoting: bldginsp Only because the voters voted it in. If the voters vote it out, out it goes, and I get an early retirement Here the voters in aspect to these codes are the county or township elected board, that once election is over care little of the voters opinions until election time rolls around then they are your bestest friend in the world. Quoting: Borrego Devil's Advocate here....why does the the Gov't have the right to restrict or otherwise govern the construction of a dwelling? Except for public safety, harm to your neighbors etc...not really applicable in remote areas like most of inhabit... Because the care so much about you they want to protect the classes. By restricting you, charging, and being up in your business they can insure to restrain, control, and remove dreams, so the upper class are not bothered by the pesent shack next door...

Don_P Member	# Posted: 18 May 2016 01:13am - Edited by: Don_P Reply One problem with trying to change things is exactly this. Whining does little. Ignorance does little. This quickly devolved into ignorant whining. Let me know how y'all make out with anarchy. Holler if you want to get back on track.

old greybeard Member	# Posted: 18 May 2016 08:32am - Edited by: old greybeard Reply Quoting: Borrego Devil's Advocate here....why does the the Gov't have the right to restrict or otherwise govern the construction of a dwelling? Except for public safety, harm to your neighbors etc...not really applicable in remote areas like most of inhabit... Because people kill themselves, their kids, and future owners by being unsafe. Because for all of us who would only put shower and dish grey water on the ground there is some fool who puts raw sewage on the ground.

bldginsp Member	# Posted: 18 May 2016 01:16pm - Edited by: bldginsp Reply And, because most people live in houses that they did not themselves build, and they want an assurance that the house meets a safety standard. If you don't want that safety standard, that's up to you, but someone else in the future will live in the building you build today. The voting public wants all buildings built to a minimum standard so you know what you are getting when you buy a house. That's the majority rule society we live in. The Framers of the Constitution believed that a primary duty of each member of a constitutional democracy is to obey the law voted in by the majority. But these days "Constitutionalist" is sometimes seen as a person who believes that in a free country the government can't tell you what to do. How'd we get to that point? Koch brothers extreme right wing libertarian public relations ploys? My father is very conservative and he will not violate any law- just on principle- he couldn't live with himself if he did otherwise. That's the old conservatism, now it's different, at least, with some. But I fear I am wasting digital energy with my digits on the virtual keyboard of my iPad.

Running Wolf Member	# Posted: 18 May 2016 03:14pm Reply I was going to share my thoughts and potential issues I could see, coming from the view and questions as I would ask just as in tribal council before rendering vote, however, it was posted more research was being done to create a "smorgy" so I withhold/stand down until time of presentation. This post has aided me greatly in stimulating thought and ideas... I will not get into discussion on constitution law as the constitution is Indian Law framed into colonial wording and thinking. I would throw it on the table in my belief no man would purposely build a struture that would bring harm to his family or himself. Make errors yes.

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 18 May 2016 09:21pm Reply Quoting: bldginsp constitutional democracy You mean representative republic. Framers didnt want a true democracy, which is mob rule. In mob rule, 51% can vote themselves the wealth from the other 49%. A democracy is not a form of govt that can survive, when the people realize they can vote themselves money from the treasury, they will bankrupt it.

Don_P Member	# Posted: 18 May 2016 09:58pm Reply I see something on the other side of the Rubicon.

Running Wolf Member	# Posted: 19 May 2016 01:54am Reply 50+1 is not democracy but mob rule, however the idea democracy does not work is not acturate, it just means everyone must agree which translates to slow progress