[stonehammer]

Building Inspector and Shipping Containers.

Ok, so play along with me. Much like avoiding, (not evading!) unnecessary business taxes, I would like to help a client of mine “avoid” the jurisdiction of the building dept.

My client has large freestanding building built to code and zoned for industrial use. It is a large free span space with sprinklers, exit signs, proper egress doors, etc.

Now, we want to place a couple of Sea Containers or Shipping Containers inside the building for various uses in his business. For example, one would be used as a small photography studio. Another will be used for abrasive cutting and grinding, a way to keep the “dirty area” separate from other areas. And of course, he can move theses units around easily with the proper dollies and a flatbed truck. That flexibility is really what we are after.

So, how does one “classify” these “Cells” for lack of a better term? For example if one used the back of a straight job truck that was properly registered and insured as a mobile photo studio, to my understanding the BD (Building Dept.) has no jurisdiction over the truck. Of course that is debatable, but that is not the point. Many business take a box truck and have it boldly painted “fast cash” or “We Buy Homes” etc and park them in their parking lot in order the avoid the zoning laws with regard to signs. In the towns and states I am familiar with, unless the town adopts a new ordnance, there is nothing they can do.

Another example is a movie set. Obviously, Frodo Baggins home in the Shire did not meet the standard building codes for occupancy. Nor does The Myth Buster’s outdoor parking lot bunker, which is a Shipping Container btw.

Also, you have industrial equipment. Specialized mobile equipment, like a TBM (LOL) and alike.

So, if you wanted to have a “hands off” situation with regard to Mobile Equipment Cells, (MEC) and the BD what might be your approach?

Thanks,
SH

 

[ex mounty]

I would go to the local building department and ask the questions you want answered without giving any detail as to where this may occur. Approach it more in the way of "what would happen if" or the "I was thinking we could do this but wanted to run it passed you" approach.

 

[stonehammer]

Thanks for the feedback. I basically did that. I have a friend that is a “Construction Official” and he is not clear on how to handle such a case. His basic feeling is that if its industrial equipment, then it is UL listed or Equivalent. On the other hand, if you “ask” him to take a look at it as a professional, then the standard codes some into play, including ADA.

ADA? Could you imagine a movie set or an earth mover than needed to have a wheelchair ramp or other such aids. I certainly don’t mean that as a cruel comment, just a practical one. The building inspectors have to use their “book”. So, how is it ok to build a complex movie set that is not ADA compliant? Nor has sprinklers, proper hand rails, exit signs, etc.??? Chapter and Verse please LOL

In many cases I would ask the BD for their input. In this case, I feel that going to them would empower their position, whatever it may be. I am approaching this from the perspective of how do I design an item that the BD has no jurisdiction over. So, since that is my intent I do not want to waste their time or mine.

The questions are who, what, or how is something like a movie set or industrial equipment regulated???

Thanks
SH

 

[jpciron]

Easy, keep tires under the containers. If there are dock doors on the building back the containers up to them to avoid americans with disabilities from complaining. This is where ADA comes in to play, you wont have a problem with them as long as no one tries to sue you. I have seen stupid @ss cases. Its about $, Good luck.

 

[ford_doctor]

A shipping container is in no way shape or form considered a building much less a permanent structure. Faced with a similar situation, my company wanted to build a storage shed off the side of the for shop equipment and were declined permission. Don't know why but the reason is un-important. As a result there has been a Connex box next to the building for a good 10 years now. Since it is not a permanent structure or classified as a building the local officials had nothing to say. The only official I know has any interest is the fire inspector who checks it during regular inspections. Just my experience.

 

[fordforever]

Here we have a reg that states if a building is over 100 square feet footprint it has to have a full foundation ... So up go the sheds with lightweight utility trailer axles bolted to them ... Makes no matter that the axles would not last 20 feet with the load ... Some guys even put 6"x6" full length skids underneath their sheds ... Makes them portable ...

 

[Matt0987]

I am a building contractor. Have been for 27 years. In the industry for 35 years. I am not sure how to say this without sounding flippant, but, I do not see a concern here. You have a legal warehouse. You put a shipping container inside. You put stuff in it. Or, you use it for whatever.

You are simply putting a container in a warehouse. Like you would store a boat, or a trailer, or a fork lift, or a mobile home, or a portable office, or a portable toilet.

If, as an individual, you were concerned about fire there are systems designed to be connected to, essentially, a large fire extinguisher. The pipes go to the heads from the extinguisher.

The fire department could have a concern. In the event that the building, the warehouse, sprinkler systems would not be able to effect a fire that was inside of a container. But as Ford Doctor said, it is not a building.

"It is easier to get forgiveness than permission." If, at the annual inspection, the fire department expressed a concern about how the container was being used I would simply ask for their input. But I would also have the container(s) closed and locked if not in use. In case a fire inspector came by unannounced.

Remember the fire inspectors are not the bad guys. They only have your welfare and the welfare of others in mind. I would think that if they had a concern one of the self contained fire supression systems would remedy their concerns. And, such a system might be in the warehouse owner's best interest.

Remember, if the container was deemed part of the reason for a loss the insurance company might deny coverage. Depending on the situation.

But I would not think you would have a building department issue here. Fire department? Perhaps.

 

[lone_star_dsl]

I agree with Matt0987, there should be no issue with it from a building inspector stand point.

As a firefighter, I don't think there would be any major issues. Putting an appropriately sized fire extinguisher in the containers would go a long way for any fire inspections. I have personally inspected many of the commercial buildings in my district and any problems are usually documented and made aware to the manager of the property.

Our Fire Marshall has only written one citation for a problem in the last eight years. The building had a faulty sprinkler system and they didn't have it corrected by our fourth visit.

 

[Panache]

I would think it would make a difference if it was permanently connected to the building or not. Hard wired and plumbed and such. That would make it a part of the building not just something parked in the building.

 

[Matt0987]

I would think it would make a difference if it was permanently connected to the building or not. Hard wired and plumbed and such. That would make it a part of the building not just something parked in the building.

Now this is different story. Depending on the extent of the connections. A cord or hard wired. A hose or solidly connected to pipe. A rest room fully plumbed.

Now you are asking for a headache.