# Romeo and Juliet balconies



## Sifu (May 13, 2015)

Heated debate here, I say there is no violation with a Romeo and Juliet type balcony.  What I have is an exterior door that opens into a room, directly outside and across the opening is a fully compliant guard rail.  EEO, and required egress are not an issue.  My boss says can't do it because every door requires a landing.  I pointed out that human traffic is not intended for this opening.  I also pointed out the exception at 311.3.  What say you?  I know, he's the boss and if he doesn't allow them so be it.  Just looking for validation if there is any to be had. 2009 IRC.  Thanks.


----------



## cda (May 13, 2015)

The boss is right::::  NOT

Would he allow a nice big openable window there???


----------



## steveray (May 13, 2015)

I say it is a side hinged window and the boss can kiss off...As I learned from one of the wise people here....


----------



## jdfruit (May 13, 2015)

Would be interesting to know what kicked off the debate.

You have a supportable and nearly ironclad position using R311.3 exception.

Here is an interesting counterpoint for the debate: If the door is not used as a door (in normal use no human passes through the door walking or other ambulatory mode), then can it be a door? If not a door, then can it be a window?


----------



## cda (May 13, 2015)

jdfruit said:
			
		

> Would be interesting to know what kicked off the debate.You have a supportable and nearly ironclad position using R311.3 exception.
> 
> Here is an interesting counterpoint for the debate: If the door is not used as a door (in normal use no human passes through the door walking or other ambulatory mode), then can it be a door? If not a door, then can it be a window?


Ah Confusious , wise grasshopper


----------



## conarb (May 13, 2015)

What I had an architect do to solve this debate was place the french doors on top of the plate, that raises it up a few inches so it's clearly a "window".  Builders like it too since it's easier to frame (no recessing sills) and easier to waterproof.


----------



## Sifu (May 13, 2015)

I overheard one of the plans being examined and being denied and had to jump in.  Ironically I have about a 7 million dollar house right now where the same thing was approved.  And I did try the "what is a door" approach.  He is hung up on the landing being required because it is a door, to which I asked the rather philosophical question....."if a door is in the woods and nobody goes through it, is it still a door?"  I asked him to define a door and didn't get an answer.  I believe the intent of the code is to require a landing at a door WHEN THAT DOOR IS FOR HUMAN TRAFFIC, not when it is simply an opening where the intended use is for aesthetics, light and ventilation.  But, he is the boss so I will enforce it....when he is watching.  CONARB, pretty elegant solution that solves a lot of issues, I will keep in mind for future conflicts.


----------



## cda (May 13, 2015)

Sifu

So a person submits plans with the Romeo door/window

And guard

Than puts a landing outside

Would he approve it????

Platform for Juliet ????


----------



## conarb (May 13, 2015)

\ said:
			
		

> CONARB, pretty elegant solution that solves a lot of issues, I will keep in mind for future conflicts.


Note that I said it raised it a "few" inches, bear in mind for this approach to look "elegant" you have to take into consideration the width of the interior casing, if the casing is going to be wide you may have to raise the sole plate up higher to wrap the casing around the entire "window", this entails doubling, tripling, or quadrupling the sole plate.  I learned this by remodeling older mansions in Piedmont and Hillsborough, this is how they did it back when they built real mansions.


----------



## JBI (May 13, 2015)

Rather than focus on what defines a 'door' (or creatively mask its' designed intent), perhaps a better question might be 'what is an exterior balcony?'.

While I agree that it is a no harm, no foul situation, and that it does not violate the intent of the Code nor create an unsafe condition, when I hear the words 'exterior balcony' I envision something more than a fenestration and a guard rail.


----------



## Sifu (May 14, 2015)

Correct there is no balcony.  I have requested a technical opinion as to whether the exception is intended to allow the fenestration and guard rail.  Personally I don't think a technical opinion, or code for that matter is needed to allow this.  The code doesn't address everything and is not intended to.  Some things must be left to figure out on our own.


----------



## cda (May 14, 2015)

Not much to figure out

It is a door window


----------



## mark handler (May 14, 2015)

Definition of WINDOW. an opening especially in the wall of a building for admission of light and air that is usually closed by casements or sashes containing transparent material (as glass) and capable of being opened and shut.

Definition of door

a hinged, sliding, or revolving barrier at the *entrance* to a building, room, or vehicle, or in the framework of a cupboard

it is a window, approved as submitted


----------



## Sifu (May 14, 2015)

We appear to agree.  Now we'll see if ICC can lend it any legitimacy.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 14, 2015)

Sifu said:
			
		

> We appear to agree.  Now we'll see if ICC can lend it any legitimacy.


What odds are you giving on that bet? :lol:


----------



## Sifu (May 14, 2015)

Not enough to bet any money on it but I remain hopeful.


----------



## tmurray (May 15, 2015)

The other way to look at is is to ask why a landing is required. If code should be read and interpreted by reasonable people. We can only do that if the intent of the code is known. If the intent of the landing requirement seems ludicrous in this scenario it likely is and should not be enforced.

It feels weird to see absolutely everyone agreeing on something here...


----------



## Sifu (May 15, 2015)

Yep, went down that road too, but without success.


----------



## cda (May 15, 2015)

tmurray said:
			
		

> The other way to look at is is to ask why a landing is required. If code should be read and interpreted by reasonable people. We can only do that if the intent of the code is known. If the intent of the landing requirement seems ludicrous in this scenario it likely is and should not be enforced.It feels weird to see absolutely everyone agreeing on something here...


Hay ,,,, only one person is wrong

Everyone likes a winner


----------



## tmurray (May 15, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> Hay ,,,, only one person is wrongEveryone likes a winner


I guess everyone here has a similar outlook on code requirements that I do; if I understand the intent of the code requirement and in a particular situation it would be stupid to require compliance then I don't require it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 15, 2015)

[A] 104.1 General.

The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.

A lot of Building Officials refuse to step up to the plate and adopt a policy to clarify something as simple as this.

A policy not only clarifies the intent of an application to a specific design it provides consistency in how a specific code section is enforced within the jurisdiction.


----------



## conarb (May 15, 2015)

tmurray said:
			
		

> I guess everyone here has a similar outlook on code requirements that I do; if I understand the intent of the code requirement and in a particular situation it would be stupid to require compliance then I don't require it.


T Murray:

Our Supreme Court is now considering *King vs. Burwell*, this outcome should clarify the issue as to whether the government has to enforce the letter of the law or whether they can take into consideration the intent of the law.  The Obama administration is arguing that Congress' intent controls, the other side is claiming that the government has to enforce the letter of the law, this decision should have a wide-ranging impact on what everyone in government does.


----------



## jdfruit (May 15, 2015)

I have been following King v Burwell and the basic argument will be difficult for intent v letter. All arguments in this vein will be tempered by opinions on what are the controlling factors to arrive at results desired and those results are the argument focus. Whatever comes out of the case may not be directly applicable to Building Officials making decisions on "code" as code is a subset of statute laws with code governed by specifically established enabling laws setting out the range of authority given to the administrating official. Fortunately the enabling laws are well more defined than the ACA being argued in the Supreme Court.


----------



## conarb (May 15, 2015)

I should have said "this decision *could* have a wide-ranging impact on what everyone in government does" instead of "this decision *should* have a wide-ranging impact on what everyone in government does", the Supremes at times narrowly tailor their decisions so they only apply to the case at issue, at other times the broadly tailor their decisions to have a "wide-ranging impact" and create policy.  We have to wait and see what they actually come down with, and cases of late have reached desired results by some pretty obscure reasoning, and example was Chief Justice Roberts' interpretation in the prior case, an interesting take on this:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> At worst, the wording of the law might be considered ambiguous, and in ambiguous circumstances the court has said that it should defer to reasonable interpretations by the agency in charge of administering it. In this case, the IRS has interpreted the law to allow subsidies for those on federal exchanges.¹


If they come down saying that ambiguous law can be interpreted by the agency in charge of administrating it, that *could* give the CBO latitude in his interpretation of the ambiguities, and God knows the codes are full of ambiguities.

¹ http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hasen-roberts-supreme-court-obamacare-20141113-story.html


----------



## mark handler (May 15, 2015)

A very important part not understood by many contractors

" Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code."



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> [A] 104.1 General.The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.
> 
> A lot of Building Officials refuse to step up to the plate and adopt a policy to clarify something as simple as this.
> 
> A policy not only clarifies the intent of an application to a specific design it provides consistency in how a specific code section is enforced within the jurisdiction.


----------



## Sifu (May 22, 2015)

Update.  Received a response from ICC technical staff, as follows:

May 20, 2015

Subject:  2015 IRC Sec R311.3

A. Since the door in question is not part of the required means of egress, Section R311 does not apply and the proposed arrangement is considered acceptable with a compliant guard installed across the opening.

Na-nanana-na!


----------



## mark handler (May 22, 2015)

Sifu said:
			
		

> Update.  Received a response from ICC technical staff, as follows:May 20, 2015
> 
> Subject:  2015 IRC Sec R311.3
> 
> ...


Drinks on you?


----------



## Sifu (May 22, 2015)

It is Friday!  Got my regularly scheduled meeting with Mr. Daniels tonight.


----------



## mark handler (May 22, 2015)

Sifu said:
			
		

> It is Friday!  Got my regularly scheduled meeting with Mr. Daniels tonight.


Say hi to my old friend Jack


----------



## fatboy (May 22, 2015)

And his pal Jim.


----------



## cda (May 22, 2015)

You all need to go Wild with the Turkey


----------



## mark handler (May 22, 2015)

fatboy said:
			
		

> And his pal Jim.


You mean his cousin? Mr. Beam.

They are all related in Kentucky.....


----------



## tbz (May 28, 2015)

Sorry for the delay,

I have written about this in past posts, but depending on how the 2009 IRC was adopted section R311.3 Floors and landings is the section that notes you are required to have a landing outside every exterior door.

When I wrote the exception for that section and it was adopted in to the IRC, I was specific that I only reduced the dimension for the 36" requirement to be less than 36" for balconies less than 60 sqft and not removed.

The intent was even if a single door, sliding door or twin door was installed to act as a window, that when a guard was installed across the opening at floor level. that some sort of small flooring section be installed under the guard, even if it was not able to be stood upon.

The technical term would be a false balcony.

In debates with others here and at code hearings more light was shed to me that any walking surface on the outside of the vertical of the "Door(s)" in place is were a landing starts, some argue the outer portion of the door sill is the start of a landing and others argue the door sill is not part of the landing.

The bottom line is simply this, the exception to R311.3 allows a landing to be less than 36" which means it could be 1/16" and thus as long as the opening limitations of the adopted code section is in compliance, weather or not a landing exist, is simply pointless, with the only reason for the landing being required in the first place for R311.3 is to be able to step out and compose yourself before changing direction or descending down a stair flight or ramp, the fact that you can't go anywhere is the true intent for the exception.

There are many who build the guards for this opening with just a horizontal bar set at the bottom of the guard at floor level, it is not really a functional landing, but serves to dispose of those that wont budge from a technical diff that anything out there less than 36" and more than zero complies to the letter of the code.

I hope I did not bore you.

Tom


----------

