Well, there seem to be building department people that with the IBC & this amendment:
SECTION 5.04 Permanent Living Quarters. Nothing within this Ordinance shall be construed to allow a camping trailer, licensed vehicle or trailer, tent, yurt, recreational vehicle (including park models), or any other vehicle, accessory structure, or item as a permanent dwelling. No parcel can be used for temporary living quarters for a period of more than 6 months in a 12 month period, unless permitted for use as specified under a conditional use permit for a campground or recreational vehicle park.
Leap to a conclusion like this:
"Dear (Landowner),
"Yurts are considered temporary structures in ----- County and can only be erected for 6 months out of any 12 month period. Futhermore, yurts cannot, at any time, be used as a residence.
"If you are renting the yurt you must immediately stop. If you are using it for temporary guests that are friends or family or for your own personal use, you have until December 1, 2016 to remove the yurt.
"If you wish to secure a permit to have a campground, please contact me at the number above."
Signed by an 'Associate Planner'.
Note that the amendment calls out yurts specifically, that a yurt cannot be used as a permanent dwelling, and that any particular parcel can be used for temporary living quarters for only 6 months out of 12. Somehow that means yurts cannot be used as temporary living quarters (ever) and can only be erected for 6 months at a time.
The IBC (
2015 in text searchable or
2012) does not use the word 'residence' but rather 'dwelling unit', 'building', or 'structure'. Chapter 2 is for most of the general definitions, with other specific chapters/sections having their relevant definition sections. The IBC has Appendix A, "Employee Qualifications" in which is mentioned 'Building Official', 'Chief Inspector', 'Inspector and Plans examiner'.
In other words the fellow that wrote that kind letter is probably low on the pecking order, doesn't know how to properly use the keywords & definitions in the code, writes horribly for an official, and likely could easily be challenged. But people don't like being challenged, especially when they think they are an official.
Since he did not request any response (only actions in some limited cases) I needn't respond. But I suspect he'll intrude again at some point--where I'll write a letter (for the landlord) politely asking for clarification on some key points with code references or Commission Minutes. We'll find out then if he can substantiate his claims--if not, speaking with a higher up or a lawsuit may be in order.
I know this doesn't exactly fit your situation in the South, but it may be enlightening to know just how far from the actual Code some building department people can get. Know the Code, know the Rules, know when somebody is making $#!+ up. And welcome to the land of bureaucracy & litigation.