Appeal 33483
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered - Building Code Board of Appeals
Appeal ID: 33483
Submission Date: 9/20/24 4:01 PM
Hearing Date: 9/19/24
Case #:
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name:
Appeal Involves: BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
Proposed use: R-3
Project Address: 2513-2515 NW Upshur St
Appellant Name: Hayden Laverty
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 23-093801-CO
Stories: 2 Occupancy: R-3 Construction Type: V-B
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - throughout
Plans Examiner/Inspector: Michael Rusch
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1] [File 2] [File 3] [File 4]
Payment Option: mail
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | Section R101.2.3.1 |
|---|---|
| Requires | Under Section R101.2.3.1, titled "Matters outside the statutory authority of this code," it is stated that local municipalities do not have the authority under this code to regulate certain matters. These matters include post-occupancy lease or rental arrangements, short-term rentals, vacation rentals, and similar uses. While a municipality may possess additional authority outside of this code to locally regulate these matters, such authority should not be preemptive.” “As a starting point, the opinion below from ICC’s Chris Reeves is accurate and in line with the position of Oregon Building Codes Division and the statewide building codes. The new 2023 ORSC language you noted was specifically added for this scenario.” “There is no citable path in the ORSC or OSSC to require a change of occupancy permit for a dwelling constructed under the ORSC that is being used as a short-term rental.” ~ Eric McMullen, Structural Program Assistant Chief, Oregon Building Codes Division |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | Short-term rentals do not require a change of occupancy permit. I am requesting the board to clarify that these properties remain classified as residential structures regulated under the ORSC. The property is a two-family residential structure in the CM1 zone. Per PZC 33.207.030, the property owner has elected to use the property as an accessory short-term rental regulated as a Retail Sales and Service use, which is an allowed use in the CM1 zone.
Requiring upgrades to meet code without any permit trigger also violates ORS 455.040(1) and ORSC R102.7 |
| Proposed Design | Property is two dwelling units |
| Reason for alternative | Existing R-3 occupancies may not be regulated under the building code without a trigger under OSSC 105.1. The fact that the property is in the CM1 zone and the owner has chosen to use it as a short-term rental regulated as a Retail Sales and Service use is irrelevant. Therefore, the property owner cannot be obligated to upgrade the property to comply with OSSC 903.2.8.1. This interpretation has already been clarified by both governing bodies of the building code (ICC and Oregon Building Code Division). The building code is not being used to regulate short-term rentals anywhere else in Oregon, nor are we aware of it being used anywhere in the country. In fact, many municipalities allow short-term rental use in R-2 properties below a certain threshold. The term "accessory" is being used to differentiate permit types, yet this terminology is not supported by the ORSC, the ICC, or the Oregon Building Codes Division. The OSSC 508.2 defines accessory uses as “Those occupancies that are ancillary to the main occupancy of the building or portion thereof.” This definition clearly refers to minor uses within a building that primarily serves another function, such as a small office within a warehouse. The city's argument that renting by the night constitutes a different use entirely undermines the validity of using the term "accessory" in this context. From a building code perspective, all short-term rentals should be treated uniformly. Regulation of these properties is more appropriately managed through zoning codes, as is already the case. The assertion that it is safe and acceptable to host nightly guests for up to 90 days per year without a permanent occupant, but suddenly unsafe at 91 days, lacks any logical or safety-based foundation. Is there a specific building code citation that justifies this interpretation? Additionally, our team has independently researched whether properties are following this regulation. Based on our findings, over 90% of Type-B permits appear to be full-time rentals. We believe it is safe to assume Type-A permits would yield similar results. These permits can be issued for buildings in any zone and of almost all sizes and safety standards, without any mandatory inspection. According to Portland's interpretation (which does not align with the ICC, State of Oregon, our own opinion, that of our legal advisors, and numerous private architects/engineers we have consulted), it is not only acceptable to violate the building code for 90 days per year, but there is also no verification that individuals are following the rules of these permits. Enforcement of properties having permits at all has only recently begun after four years. Even if this were considered a change of occupancy (which all governing authorities say it is not), the IEBC states that in the case of a change of occupancy, a sprinkler system shall not be required in a one- or two-family dwelling constructed in accordance with the IRC. Despite this particular project was pro-actively sprinklered using a 13-D system and now the following additional requirements are being added: Eaves at the west elevation are within 2’ of the FSD are required to be finished at the underside with 2 layers of 5/8” type X gypsum. Given these points, we respectfully request a reevaluation of the current interpretation and its practical implications. Ensuring consistent and reasonable regulations will benefit property owners and align Portland's practices with broader standards observed nationwide. |
Appeal Decision
The Building Code Board of Appeal met on September 19, 2024 and the following decision was reached:
Item 1: Allow existing unrated walls and eaves and existing unprotected openings to remain for structure changing use to full time transient use regulated under OSSC: Granted provided the structure is fully sprinklered to the NFPA 13D standard and the structure remains a maximum of 2 dwelling units. Any new openings or new work on the exterior walls or projections may meet the requirements outlined in ORSC R302.1 Exterior Walls instead of OSSC Section 705 Exterior Walls.
Decision: Unanimous
Board Members: Eric Bressman, Beth Brett, and Sharon Nobbe
According to Oregon Revised Statutes 455.690, you may appeal this decision to the appropriate State of Oregon advisory board within 30 calendar days of this decision being published. For information on the appeals process and costs, including forms, appeal fees, payment methods, and fee waivers, contact the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Building Codes Division.