# Smoke Detector in detached garage



## GEORGE D (Apr 2, 2009)

Failed my rough inspection today for this. Aren't SD's only required for dwelling units? This is a 2 story detached garage with a workshop on first floor, and an open bonus room upstairs with bathroom. No bedrooms.


----------



## 3xdad (Jan 25, 2011)

Why is your electrical inspector failing you for smokes?


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

its consdidered a 'dwelling' area


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

It's not in my code book.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

GEORGE D said:


> Failed my rough inspection today for this. Aren't SD's only required for dwelling units? This is a 2 story detached garage with a workshop on first floor, and an open bonus room upstairs with bathroom. No bedrooms.


Bonus room with a bath is a bedroom.


----------



## GEORGE D (Apr 2, 2009)

Does that qualify as a dwelling? Or better yet, require a smoke? Need to know, as I was planning on appealing this.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

GEORGE D said:


> Does that qualify as a dwelling? Or better yet, require a smoke? Need to know, as I was planning on appealing this.


What code section is written on your failure? Smoke detectors are not required by the NEC. Is this a building inspector?

A dwelling unit is a single unit that provides complete and independent living facilities, according to the NEC definition found in Art. 100


----------



## GEORGE D (Apr 2, 2009)

This must be a multi-trade inspector. We have them for majority of smaller/medium resi inspections. Usually their background is in all but electrical, which seems to point out he's probably a building code guy. I've been searching but can't find a definitive answwer as to wether I need a SD or not.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

GEORGE D said:


> This must be a multi-trade inspector. We have them for majority of smaller/medium resi inspections. Usually their background is in all but electrical, which seems to point out he's probably a building code guy. I've been searching but can't find a definitive answwer as to wether I need a SD or not.


It's not a dwelling. Its an associated building to a dwelling(TR receptacles).


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

The building code calls that a residential accessory structure. Lucky for you, plans go through plan review. If the approved plans don't call that a dwelling, you don't need smokes. On the other hand, is there some reason why you can't stick 'em in anyhow?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

IMO, the inspector is incorrect as the structure does not fit the definition of a dwelling unit. As Marc stated it isn't a big deal to install a smoke-- assuming he does not want it interconnected with the ones in the dwelling.


----------



## GEORGE D (Apr 2, 2009)

For me it's not a big deal at all to add one, but do not want a failed inspection if I wasn't wrong to begin with.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

GEORGE D said:


> For me it's not a big deal at all to add one, but do not want a failed inspection if I wasn't wrong to begin with.


If you are going to make an appeal to the inspectors decision you must have a code section that the inspector cited.

What code did the inspector cite? Without the code section you have nothing to appeal.

Pete


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

I would just throw one in. I can see the reasons for it. It could be used for a guest bedroom.

In my home town, some kids died in a fire in a basement. It was an innocent thing, just some kids getting together for a sleepover. Undeveloped basement, no smoke detectors. A failed inspection is minor in comparison.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

99cents said:


> I would just throw one in. I can see the reasons for it. It could be used for a guest bedroom.
> 
> In my home town, some kids died in a fire in a basement. It was an innocent thing, just some kids getting together for a sleepover. Undeveloped basement, no smoke detectors. A failed inspection is minor in comparison.


I think installing one is a great idea.

What I don't think is _great_ is someone in a position of authority enforcing their opinion. If there is a legitimate code that has been cited then I could get behind that.

Pete


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

In Tn the Fire Marshall is over the enforcement of the Code. The inspectors are "Deputy Fire Marshalls". One of the first things they look for are smokes. If a permit gets pulled then the "smokes" rules kick in. They do let us use battery operated smokes in existing dwellings but if there is an addition then they must be hardwired (well only the new part).

As to the OP, that doesn't seem to fit our requirements for smokes. Only time I had to put them in a detached building was IF the room could be considered a bedroom. Having a closet usually is the defining item. No closet.......not a bedroom.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

GEORGE D said:


> Failed my rough inspection today for this. Aren't SD's only required for dwelling units? This is a 2 story detached garage with a workshop on first floor, and an open bonus room upstairs with bathroom. No bedrooms.


The obvious thing is that a two story garage was intended to be inhabited in the upper floor.....therefore, dwelling.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

RIVETER said:


> The obvious thing is that a two story garage was intended to be inhabited in the upper floor.....therefore, dwelling.


Better read definitions again, it is not a dwelling. A **** house is as much a dwelling as a room above a garage.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

3xdad said:


> Why is your electrical inspector failing you for smokes?


Around here the electrical inspector inspects for the required smoke and CO alarms, and the building inspector inspects for the concrete encased electrode.


----------



## GEORGE D (Apr 2, 2009)

Don, what's your take on my situation?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

What the hell exactly is a ''Bonus'' room?


Maybe the name says it all.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

GEORGE D said:


> Don, what's your take on my situation?


I don't think that the building codes require a smoke alarm for you application.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

everyone in the world, except the people arguing against it, know that someone is going to end up sleeping above that garage. Too many people die in those types of structures from CO poisoning, much less smoke. You should be happy to put it in, and even happier that the inspector cited you for it, so you can be paid to put it in, because you were required to.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

In the 80's developers around here tried to pull the "bonus room" stunt because 4 bedrooms was the limit before the septic system required stepping up to the next size. So 4-bedroom houses with "bonus room" was starting to take hold before the townships put the kebash on the term.

Let's be honest, WildLeg is right- a "bonus room," especially one above a detached garage is meant to be converted into an in-law or illegal accessory apartment since the needed bathroom and plumbing are already there.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> What the hell exactly is a ''Bonus'' room?
> 
> 
> Maybe the name says it all.


Usually a bonus room is the room above a garage. Often it is left undo but either way it is considered extra space or a bonus.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

We employ some creative terms around my parts for that style of room, bonus not being one I ever saw or heard of before. I did see a ''Spirituality'' room on a set of house plans once. I didn't submit a bid on that one, I stay the hell away from crackpot far fetched nutcase people.......


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

My next door neighbor built one, custom garage and room above. 

His daughter promptly moved right in.

&&&&

Unless big dollars are involved, right, wrong or in between hereabouts we always give in to the inspectors.

We can't afford to be 'right.'

Even if you're totally right, the very process hangs up the certificate of occupancy -- which means the payments to us.

It also infuriates the AHJ -- who -- to my knowledge -- NEVER forgives any EC for 'educating' him in his authority.

&&&&&&

These situations are why we always leave extra raceways and spare conductors when they are cheap insurance for last second extras.

Indeed, spare conduit stubs are locally mandated by our local authorities -- as an addendum to the NEC.

These last second got-cha's just ruin a job.


----------



## GEORGE D (Apr 2, 2009)

Guys, for clarity, I too believe it's a great idea to add one, extra safety is never a bad thing. My issue is just the fact that you fail somebody for something that isn't a real code violation, which ultimately costs the EC or GC more money, as well as add to his failure rate, when all he had to do was make a request to add the smoke and hold off on inspection until. I know it's often more headache fighting these guys, but code is code, they can't just go around freestyling things to their standards.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

I might put one in depending on the environment and if the HO wanted one but I'd also make it clear to the expector to stick to the code next time.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

GEORGE D said:


> Guys, for clarity, I too believe it's a great idea to add one, extra safety is never a bad thing. My issue is just the fact that you fail somebody for something that isn't a real code violation, which ultimately costs the EC or GC more money, as well as add to his failure rate, when all he had to do was make a request to add the smoke and hold off on inspection until. I know it's often more headache fighting these guys, but code is code, they can't just go around freestyling things to their standards.


This is really the issue. I feel a lot of times like just eating it to get passed. More and more though I am just getting pissed.

They are espousing opinion, not code, not fact. I really have to hold my STFU from coming out. 

"Can you show me that in the code book".... They don't have a clue where it is or what they are talking about. Damn urban code legends.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

GEORGE D said:


> Guys, for clarity, I too believe it's a great idea to add one, extra safety is never a bad thing. My issue is just the fact that you fail somebody for something that isn't a real code violation, which ultimately costs the EC or GC more money, as well as add to his failure rate, when all he had to do was make a request to add the smoke and hold off on inspection until. I know it's often more headache fighting these guys, but code is code, they can't just go around freestyling things to their standards.


In MN, you get a letter with the code deficiencies listed. You have two weeks to fix it.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

backstay said:


> In MN, you get a letter with the code deficiencies listed. You have two weeks to fix it.


Yeah but the builder will be on your butt the next day to get back so he /she can move on.

I will almost always fight something like this but I won't if it holds up the job


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Around here it wouldn't be a fail, it would just be a note on the inspection report. They would expect to see a smoke detector on final inspection.

A fail and re-inspection on one lousy smoke detector on rough-in inspection seems like an incredible waste of time for everybody involved.


----------



## GrayHair (Jan 14, 2013)

*Educating the AHJ*



telsa said:


> ... It also infuriates the AHJ -- who -- to my knowledge -- NEVER forgives any EC for 'educating' him in his authority. ...


Agreed! Nobody likes to have their shortcomings pointed out. However, when it's somebody else, it can be educational. I found that a tale about how ignorant *I* had been, might help educate someone else.

One jurisdiction ignored "_.7 times the listed spacing_" for smoke and heat detectors. After a meeting, I told an inspector how surprised I had been when the origin of .7 had been explained to me. Of course I fully explained my new-found knowledge, adding that it had been a head-slap moment. He just chuckled and nodded wisely.

Within a couple of months or so, they were allowing .7 on both plans review and inspections. Why they changed I don't know, but I like to think I had a hand in it.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

telsa said:


> It also infuriates the AHJ -- who -- to my knowledge -- NEVER forgives any EC for 'educating' him in his authority.


Sounds like you deal with some AHJ's who shouldn't be in a position of authority at all.

As we all know, the only authority any AHJ has is to enforce the *adopted codes and standards*. 

As far as I'm concerned I welcome anyone to question me on a call I might have made. Been more than once that I've been educated and oddly enough instead of getting all butt-hurt I thanked them.

Pete


----------

