Michigan building code

[mittenman]

From my reading of code the state of Michigan a lows a building of only 120 square feet without permit however the county of Cheboygan where my land is located allows for a residential utility building of up to 200 square feet without a building permit. I'm assuming that state code would supersede county regulations but why then two separate codes?
Is the 120 or 200 square the outside or inside dimensions of the building? Thanks for any replies as I'd rather not call the county with a lot of questions until I have a good idea of the regulations so as not to stick my foot in my mouth.

[MountainDon]

A counter-question for you.  Is the proposed building going to be a storage shed or is the plan to build a building to fall within the shed size square footage, but then use it as a habitable building?

Is this to be a true storage shed (non habitable) I believe the 200 sq ft as mentioned on the county website is correct for that county. However,if the proposal is an attempt to subvert the rules regarding permits and inspections for a habitable building, then the wording... "Only a couple of projects.... ...are exempt from building permits. These include detached residential accessory buildings, like storage sheds, that are under 200 square feet in size, and buildings being used for agricultural purposes only" ... probably means you can not live in it, even part time.


As for state, county, city government levels and the building code, it is confusing when we see the state figure listed as 120 sq ft and the more local figure listed as 200 sq ft. Local levels of government usually can make adjustments to the state code, but only in the direction of being more restrictive, never being more lax than the state adopted rule. Where I live that is found in some areas requiring fire resistant siding because they are in a wildfire prone area. The code adopted by my state government makes no determinations on that. Allowing 200 sq ft instead of the state published 120 does seem to fly in the face of that thought process. I can't explain.  I would suggest asking the office where you would have to apply for any permits that might be necessary. That office should have a simple answer to such a simple question.

The square footage requirement for a permit can be viewed as more of a local zoning issue than a structural issue.

Building dimensions are normally measure on the outside of the structure. But again, ask to be certain of local interpretations.

[mittenman]

Thanks for the detailed response.
I think I'll go ahead and contact the county on Monday and see what they have to say. My purpose for the building is a small cabin for year aroud use, fishing, hunting, snowmobiling, ect. As far as I can tell MI makes no exceptions for cabins vs. houses when it comes to energy standards such as a r49 roof, or room size, ect. Building a complete house to meet all code is well out of my budget for the near future. I just want a small baseboard or wood burning stove heated cabin with kitchenette, bathroom, and loft to build on my 20 acres of land without getting into to much red tape or expenses and am in the beginning stages of seeing what my options are. As a kid several of my Uncles had cabins that they gradually added on to over the years, dug there own wells and things as time and money permitted while staying under the radar. That's been 20-30 years and I know that counties and townships have cracked down. I want to build a good cabin not a full on house but do not want to find myself afoul with law either.

[MushCreek]

That's why many 'tiny' houses are built on a trailer frame; to get around the various zoning/code rules.

[Don_P]

To follow that train of thought, they also fall under a set of inspections and there is a sticker that my building inspector looks for.
We went through a rewrite of our zoning rules in the county a year or so ago. I was involved basically trying to hold doors open and widen others. There was discussion about the size of utility buildings. I was pushing for the largest possible, zoning and the building department were correctly reading the letter of the law and pointing out that we can not write less restrictive ones than the state. The final draft came through and the maximum utility building size was larger than the state allows. I shut up and let it go without any comment figuring it was a typo after all the back and forth discussion... and I kind of wanted to see where it went. Some months later I was talking with the BO and asked what had happened there. He had known the state wind was changing, a few months later they upped the max size of a utility building. A long winded possible explanation, we are accumulating more junk so it might be that the size of those buildings is going up nationally and we are seeing the fits and spurts of that move as localities prod their legislators.

That doesn't mean it is a habitable building though, these are storage sheds. The fight you are girding for is seasonal part time recreational cabins, I hope someone can get us there but I have my doubts.

[davidj]

It may not be relevant in your case, but when I last checked in Plumas county (maybe 5 years back) 120 sq ft was the limit for no plan check, no inspection and no zoning, 200 sq ft was the limit for no plan check and no inspection.  I.e. you needed to submit a site plan for a no-fee zoning approval between 120 sq ft and 200 sq ft.  Out in the sticks the only issue with zoning was being close enough to an approved gravel driveway for fire department access (and presumably an increase in your assessed value).