Darkroom zoning issues

[DBP]

Thanks everyone. I don't expect any issues with the actual inspector, because the issue gets worked through before the plans are approved. While there are advantages to adding an external exit, there are drainage and foundation issues that would need to be remediated on that side if we did anything to change the current state. We have an issue on the other side caused by the last owners planting a holly too close to the foundation that is going to be about $9k to fix, and can't really afford to create a similar issue and spend the same amount to fix it on this side. Currently we are going for approval for an alternate safety approach involving interconnected fire alarms. Otherwise it is back to using hoses, extension cords, and curtains, with no forced ventilation.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Otherwise it is back to using hoses, extension cords, and curtains, with no forced ventilation.

Sad when government forces us to choose long term and potential harm for "safety".

 

[eddie]

I live in Alexandria, and had to deal with the inspectors when I applied for my business permit. I do have an exit from the darkroom, so it wasn't an issue, although required for the business permit. At the time (20 years ago) I was told I wouldn't need the exit, if the darkroom was strictly for hobby purposes. Things may have changed in the last 20 years, though...
Unless you're planning on using it for business, I'd go with just doing the rough-in. It's common in new construction. Then, build the darkroom later.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Here's most of an answer to a similar (garage, not basement) question that I recently received from a local code official in another state:

"The 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) defines “habitable space” this way. “A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces.” The garage is a non-habitable space. If the new room will be a space used to store your hobby materials, finished products, etc., then it would be considered a non-habitable space as well. However, if you will spend time in the new room working on your hobbies, it will be considered a habitable space. This is an important distinction because a habitable space has many more Code requirements associated with it than non-habitable space.

As I noted, we review all residential projects submitted to obtain a building permit against provisions of the 2012 IRC. I can’t list here all the Code requirements regarding habitable space as they are numerous; however they relate to fire protection between garage and habitable spaces, natural light & ventilation, heating, electrical, plumbing, and energy requirements for insulation in exterior walls and ceiling and for any mechanical system you might want to have installed. For non-habitable space, few of these concerns listed above are applicable.

I recommend that you obtain a copy of the 2012 IRC, perhaps at your public library reference section, and go through it to ascertain what is needed..."​

Many jurisdictions have adopted the 2012 IRC. It can be reviewed on-line here:

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/​

I echo previous advice against making non-permitted permanent modifications. Doing so frequently causes extreme trouble when selling or attempting to collect on an insurance claim, not to mention increasing the real risk of injury or death. Temporarily installing hobby items using quick-disconnects, on the other hand, might be your best available option.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Countless numbers of habitable buildings have countless numbers of 'violations' that have functioned perfectly well for a hundred years. Modern 'best practices' are only the current notion of what is 'safe'. At the current mindset I can foresee having to update any building to the current standards of safety before it can be sold. Then, it is just a hop skip and a jump to anything in violation will being condemned. This is madness.

Wait till the inspector is done, then build your darkroom. If you are satisfied with how safe you will be in it then it will be OK for you. If needed tear it out before you sell.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...At the current mindset I can foresee having to update any building to the current standards of safety before it can be sold. Then, it is just a hop skip and a jump to anything in violation will being condemned...

That's not how it works. Existing structures/uses are grandfathered, even when properties are sold. It's only when one wishes to make modifications that relevant items must be brought up to current code. I've not even heard notional discussion of any jurisdiction proposing that existing structures/uses must be upgraded at a certain date, much less condemned.

Over reaction may be emotionally satisfying, but it's not helpful in a rational conversation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mr Limbaugh simply lives where the codes are different because they need bigger doorways to get his fat butt thru them. .. But it is not only
jurisdications which differ, but often individual inspectors. When I was shopping lots here, I had a choice between two houses with sizable
commercial outbuildings. I chose one and a coworker of mine bought the other, intending to put a very nice cabinet shop in there. The city
had two inspectors at that time. My friend got the crooked one who held his project up for over two years awaiting bribes. I got a friendly
young guy who took a look at my darkroom plans and quickly replied that he wanted to build a darkroom too, and started asking me for advice. Easiest inspection I ever went through.

 

[mopar_guy]

Countless numbers of habitable buildings have countless numbers of 'violations' that have functioned perfectly well for a hundred years. Modern 'best practices' are only the current notion of what is 'safe'. At the current mindset I can foresee having to update any building to the current standards of safety before it can be sold. Then, it is just a hop skip and a jump to anything in violation will being condemned. This is madness.

Wait till the inspector is done, then build your darkroom. If you are satisfied with how safe you will be in it then it will be OK for you. If needed tear it out before you sell.

For argument's sake, lets say uncle Joe wants to remodel his home, and he wants to do everything himself. Maybe he can, or maybe everything will be done poorly. Uncle Joe might tear out a bearing wall, break his waste pipes, have ventilation problems resulting in-moisture build-up and mold growth, and he might end up with electrical problems that could shock someone or burn the place down. A year later he might sell the place to some unsuspecting fool. That is why building permits are required if you make changes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

This is actually a pretty complex topic, all subject to not only specific local codes but the degree of enforcement. Here in earthquake country
the codes not only vary per city, but even with regard to specific neighborhood, soil types, etc. If you pull a permit, a can of worms can be
opened up. And inspectors are a mixed bag. I had a helper who became an inspector in Beverly Hills and we all cheered him when he shut down Trump's mansion due to drywall violations. There everybody is rich, and nobody wants property values diminished by violations, so bribery is rare. In some regions, bribery and blatant code violations are the norm. Many places, the property cannot be sold unless it's up to current code, unless there's an "as is" sales agreement in which the realtor or new owner assumes responsibility for doing so. I didn't want any future complications with my own project, so I pulled a legal permit with respect to rooms with permanent walls. Secondary darkrooms I
simply isolated off with removable thin fiberglass walls with the floor plates zippered in with removable concrete screws. Here in Calif you gotta be very careful how you remodel, because they can reassess your property tax with anything thing considered a formal improvement,
like an extra bedroom or bathroom. If your new darkroom looks like it can easily be converted into a bedroom or den, it is likely to cost you.
Just a darkroom, no.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

That's not how it works. Existing structures/uses are grandfathered, even when properties are sold. It's only when one wishes to make modifications that relevant items must be brought up to current code. I've not even heard notional discussion of any jurisdiction proposing that existing structures/uses must be upgraded at a certain date, much less condemned.

Over reaction may be emotionally satisfying, but it's not helpful in a rational conversation.

I wasn't saying this is the case now, but seems ever more possibly on the horizon when one looks at what's happened over the last ten to fifteen years. And "relevant" is a term very open to interpretation, my experience with the smoke detectors in the kitchen points to an over-zealous approach in making an older building conform to code resulting in an unworkable situation. Low ceilings combined with a "need" for a smoke detector x distance from any wall meant that it was always getting too hot or too much condensation or "smoke" from cooking. Reason did not enter into the discussions with anyone involved. No electrician would allow the function or existing state of the room to be considered and do any work on the building. And it was not that old. I do tend to get a bit peeved when common sense is overruled by bureaucratic BS which is dictated by a one size must fit all approach. The kitchen quickly became un-usable for anything resembling normal usage, let alone any "fancy" cooking.

If the OP would like a darkroom in a house he owns and intends to make the darkroom for his own personal use why should a perceived potential threat to persons down the road prevent him from building a darkroom down the road? If the house I currently live in (ca 1890) was purchased in a condition that was deemed acceptable by me in 2011 why must anything I do to this house that I own be done in such a fashion that is out of keeping with the rest of it? Because someone at some later date might be upset? That there is a potential danger in the house that is not dangerous enough to be a problem unless I need to alter the laundry room? I intend to live here for a long time, and I use the darkroom I built regularly. I could give a hoot if I don't have a specially designed outdoor entrance to allow some future owner access to my darkroom. I can fit out the window that is there, the same size window that was put there in 1890. No, not everyone could get out that window. But not everyone could get in or out of my front door either. Plenty of people could not get in or out of this house at all. So what? There is a saying from long ago: "Buyer beware". Sadly, this kind of common sense is quickly becoming too difficult for the masses to understand. This lowest common denominator way of deciding what is acceptable is a sad state of affairs where individuality and character and life are being sucked out of architecture. My neighborhood is in the midst of a big water & sewer upgrade and every sidewalk, curb, and retaining wall has been removed and replaced with something that looks more suited to an Interstate overpass than a residential neighborhood. The sidewalks must be x width now. The stone walls are gone, replaced by huge moulded concrete blocks. Character removed, for no real need. Walls and trees have been removed without any reason. No pipes or new construction where a dozen large old trees stood. New block retaining walls in the same place that the old solid stone walls stood. And in this house, a 32" wide stairway (against code) where a 36" wide one would be today, and where a 26" wide one would have been originally.

 

[adelorenzo]

Somebody mentioned insurance and I wouldn't overlook that as a concern. Your house burns down for ANY reason and your insurance company finds out you had an un-permitted darkroom with a bunch of chemicals in it, I'd be seriously afraid of having them refuse to pay. You might win in court but that could take years and a lot of money.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I wasn't saying...would have been originally.

It doesn't seem appropriate to repeat your complete post, since I'm not going to respond to or attempt rebuttal of any specifics you wrote. Instead Robert, please consider that you might too far west by one state.

The inquiry and reply I included in Post #29 were from a building official in the southwest US (not California). I asked him questions because, every time you have a bout of cold, snowy weather in New England, we second-guess our decision to retire there. Two years ago I bought a building lot 60 road miles east of you in Bartlett, New Hampshire. Pondering the tradeoff of a larger-footprint, single-story home design against multiple stories with a residential elevator, I contacted town officials to find out what ongoing inspection requirements would be levied on the elevator equipment. Having spent my career in systems engineering, I wanted to ensure all factors were included in the trade study.

The letter sent back to me, signed by all three Bartlett Selectmen, said there were no inspection requirements on the elevator because the town has only a zoning code, no building code. I would be free to install an elevator of my choice with the only impact being on my property taxes (it is included in the home's assessed value). With one small change, New Hampshire's motto could easily reflect the approach you desire, namely "Live free to die."

I consider myself fortunate to have both a competent building contractor and sufficient expertise to ensure that the 2012 IRC is followed despite its not being a legal requirement in that town.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Somebody mentioned insurance and I wouldn't overlook that as a concern. Your house burns down for ANY reason and your insurance company finds out you had an un-permitted darkroom with a bunch of chemicals in it, I'd be seriously afraid of having them refuse to pay. You might win in court but that could take years and a lot of money.

After a long drawn out battle two years ago with my former insurance company after hitting a moose at night on the interstate and totaling my car, we've just had a MOST refreshing experience with our new insurance company. Adjuster quoted a number based on blue book of my wife's car, (which was hit last week) and they are sending the check out today. I'd suggest shopping around for a new insurance company if you have to battle with your current one over anything.

 

[lns]

That's not how it works. Existing structures/uses are grandfathered, even when properties are sold. It's only when one wishes to make modifications that relevant items must be brought up to current code. I've not even heard notional discussion of any jurisdiction proposing that existing structures/uses must be upgraded at a certain date, much less condemned.

Over reaction may be emotionally satisfying, but it's not helpful in a rational conversation.

That actually can be how it works. Remember that zoning is regional. For example, there are municipalities in Chicago that require a home seller to pay for a city compliance inspection, and then to pay for repairs to the property to bring it up to current code*. (If the home is sold in foreclosure, then the buyer has to pay for the repairs.)

For the OP, we have a basement that is habitable, but our exit is a large window with a small metal ladder leading up from the window well to ground level. I understand that this is still expensive if you have to renovate an existing basement, but it may be easier and cheaper than actual stairs. Good luck to you. From a safety standpoint, it does make sense; if people are going to be spending hours in the basement, there should be a fire escape.

*In some respects: e.g., electrical.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

That's not how it works. Existing structures/uses are grandfathered, even when properties are sold. It's only when one wishes to make modifications that relevant items must be brought up to current code. I've not even heard notional discussion of any jurisdiction proposing that existing structures/uses must be upgraded at a certain date, much less condemned...

That actually can be how it works. Remember that zoning is regional. For example, there are municipalities in Chicago that require a home seller to pay for a city compliance inspection, and then to pay for repairs to the property to bring it up to current code*. (If the home is sold in foreclosure, then the buyer has to pay for the repairs.)...

*In some respects: e.g., electrical.

OK, so there's a jurisdiction in Illinois I hadn't heard of that requires electrical systems not meeting code to be upgraded at time of title transfer. Probably lots of old knob-and-tube systems there. Makes sense to insist new owners upgrade those, since the community provides fire protection services. I have no problem with such requirements.