# Continuation of Non-Compliant Stair



## dchin (Jun 27, 2010)

I am working on a renovation of a home in Pennsylvania that was built in 1979. The width of each run of the main u-shaped staircase which connects the first and second floors is 2'-9". The owner would like to continue this staircase up to the third floor, which is currently accessed via a spiral staircase.   Due to the stairwell dimensions at the second floor and conditions at the third floor, it would be impossible to widen the staircase going up to the third floor to meet the current IRC code dimensions for stairs width.  Has anyone encountered a similar condition and been allowed to construct a continuation of a non-conforming stair?

Thanks in advance,

Donald


----------



## Mac (Jun 28, 2010)

I think if a new stair is built, it should comply with the code currently in effect.  Impossible to widen the stairwell? Maybe the owner should do nothing and continue to use the spiral stair?


----------



## TimNY (Jun 28, 2010)

I agree with mac.  If you build it, it shall comply.

If you have a process for a variance I think this would be a good candidate.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 28, 2010)

You should have a local appeals board for the municipality that you are working in.  It will come down to the interpretation of the BCO and or their inspector(s).  The PA appeals board is not in place to grant variances, simply to verify that the correct code interpretation was made by the inspector when challenged.  Is there any historical listing of this home?

I can understand the desire to do this but also realize there is not an exception for this installation to be non-compliant.


----------



## cboboggs (Jun 28, 2010)

I have to agree. The new stair must be compliant. Let them take it to the appeals board.


----------



## Kevin Turner (Jun 28, 2010)

Just because there is a stairway that is not code compliant, does not allow us to add to an existing code violation.

I agree with all above, write it and let them fight it or leave it the way it is.


----------



## Mule (Jun 28, 2010)

dchin said:
			
		

> I am working on a renovation of a home in Pennsylvania that was built in 1979. The width of each run of the main u-shaped staircase which connects the first and second floors is 2'-9". Thanks in advance,
> 
> Donald


Okay...I'm going to throw something out there for discussion.

If I am reading this correctly the original post is talking about the width of the step (width of each run). Where does it state in the code that the run shall be 36" wide?

The 36" width pertains to the area above the handrail and below the required headroom. So would it be possible on a u-shaped stair for the run to be 2'9" as long as the area above the handrail and below the required headroom was 36" and the landings were compliant? Would that meet code?


----------



## Glennman CBO (Jun 28, 2010)

If you have a mid point landing at the end of the existing stair flight, then you should be able to build the new stair from there to the third floor to current code, and leave the existing stairs alone. A flight of stairs is from landing to landing.

Re-read OP. New stair must comply, old stair can remain.


----------



## Mule (Jun 28, 2010)

I'm asking...is a run of 33" (OP 2'9"), the step, compliant if the landings are 36"? Per what the code actually states.


----------



## TimNY (Jun 28, 2010)

Mule said:
			
		

> Okay...I'm going to throw something out there for discussion.If I am reading this correctly the original post is talking about the width of the step (width of each run). Where does it state in the code that the run shall be 36" wide?
> 
> The 36" width pertains to the area above the handrail and below the required headroom. So would it be possible on a u-shaped stair for the run to be 2'9" as long as the area above the handrail and below the required headroom was 36" and the landings were compliant? Would that meet code?


R311.5.1 (2003 IRC) states the minimum width for the stairway below the handrail, including treads and landing is 31.5" or 2'-7.5".

The question is whether you can functionally build something like that.  At some point you will have to pass through an opening in the floor, and at some point that opening is above the handrail height.

But if they can somehow build it to comply , I say: well played, sir.


----------



## Mule (Jun 28, 2010)

The 2006 IRC states that the area "above" the handrails and "below" the required headroom shall be 36".

Treads shall not be less than 31.5 inches where a handrail is installed on one side and 27 inches

where handrails are provided on both sides.

So according to the OP a 33" tread could possibly work and still be in compliance.

R311.5 Stairways.

R311.5.1Width. Stairways shall not be less than 36 inches

(914 mm) in clear width at all points above the permitted

handrail height and below the required headroom height.

Handrails shall not project more than 4.5 inches (114 mm)

on either side of the stairway and the minimum clear width

of the stairway at and below the handrail height, including

treads and landings, shall not be less than 31.5 inches (787

mm) where a handrail is installed on one side and 27 inches

(698 mm) where handrails are provided on both sides.


----------



## TimNY (Jun 28, 2010)

Could comply.  Tough to figure out in this scenario if a situation could be created to have 31.5 *at* and below the handrail and 36 above.  The opening in the floor is not the required headroom, as headroom is measured from the "sloped plane" of the treads.

If you have a 33" wide opening in the floor, the handrail will bump in where the stair passes through the floor; -1.5" for required space between wall and handrail is 31.5"; -1.25" for the width of the handrail is 30.25".  I belive this would also create a scenario where you have 33" above the handrail versus the required 36".

Again, very difficult to figure out compliance without a diagram, but that is where my thinking is leading me.

In any event, I think we've pegged the appropriate code sections.


----------



## GHRoberts (Jun 28, 2010)

The purpose of the code seems to be satisfied by allowing the design of the existing stairs to be carried on up to the third floor. Give the people a variance and get on with your life.


----------



## TimNY (Jun 28, 2010)

That would be up to the people who give the variances, not the inspector (at least around here.. they are not the same).


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jun 28, 2010)

If the existing two stories of stairs is non-compliant; and you make the third floor stairs compliant; then, the people going to the third floor would need to adjust to the different stairs.  I think this could cause an unsafe condition.

The OP doesn't mention whether the spiral meets todays code; however, I doubt it does.

The stairs should not be different for the third floor than the other two; for safety reasons.  There should be a "Variance Committee" and this should be brought to their attention when the variance is requested.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Daddy-0- (Jun 28, 2010)

Hmmm. a non compliant set of stairs going to a habitable attic. Here we go again huh Uncle Bob.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 28, 2010)

> it would be impossible to widen the staircase going up to the third floor to meet the current IRC code dimensions for stairs width.


Why is it impossible?

What is the use on the 3rd floor?

How many occupants will be on the 3rd floor?

Thes are some of the questions that any variance board would want answered in order to make a decision.

Last week I was on the 3rd floor of a residence built about 1910 they installed a wood fired pizza oven for the 2400 sq ft rec .room.


----------



## vegas paul (Jun 29, 2010)

What is a Variance to a code item???  You can enforce and interpret codes (R104), grant modifications to the code (R104.10), or approve alternate deisngs/methods (R104.11).  But you can't waive code (R104 and R112.2).  Modification would be closest, but you have to ensure that the modification doesn't lessen health, life and fire safety or structural requirements of the code.

My only familiarity with a variance is for zoning... which is a rather impure and capricious set of rules to begin with.  That is, there is no national standard for zoning, it by nature varies from community to community and often from planner to planner!

So how do you grant a variance to a code item?


----------



## Mac (Jun 29, 2010)

Mule is technically correct. (note to self - check code before posting)

How about that third floor space.....


----------



## TimNY (Jun 29, 2010)

Title 19 NYCRR 1205.4 "Each regional board of review shall have the power to vary or modify, in whole or in part. any provision or requirement of the Uniform Code in cases where strict compliance with such provision or requirement would entail practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship or would otherwise be unwarranted; provided, however, that any such variance or modification shall not substantially adversely affect provisions for health, safety. and security and that equally safe and proper alternatives may be prescribed. Each regional board of review shall also have the power to hear and decide appeals of any order or determination. or the failure within a reasonable time to make an order or determination. of an administrative official charged to enforce or purporting to enforce the Uniform Code. "

That's a variance to a code item.  I do not have the authority.  As always, YMMV.


----------



## vegas paul (Jun 29, 2010)

Thanks Tim.  In the base code, the term variance is not used and I am only familiar with it being used in a planning/zoning manner.


----------



## Yankee (Jun 29, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> If the existing two stories of stairs is non-compliant; and you make the third floor stairs compliant; then, the people going to the third floor would need to adjust to the different stairs. I think this could cause an unsafe condition.The OP doesn't mention whether the spiral meets todays code; however, I doubt it does.
> 
> The stairs should not be different for the third floor than the other two; for safety reasons. There should be a "Variance Committee" and this should be brought to their attention when the variance is requested.
> 
> Uncle Bob


To my knowledge, a difference in stair geometry between unrelated flights of stairs does not cause an unsafe condition. This is discussed in the area of common design parameters. A body will "zero out" the muscle memory of the previous set of stair geometry in just a few strides, and be ready to "remember" a new set of stair geometry when encountered. You may agree or disagree, but this subject is taught in design school.


----------



## Bootleg (Jun 29, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> To my knowledge, a difference in stair geometry between unrelated flights of stairs does not cause an unsafe condition. This is discussed in the area of common design parameters. A body will "zero out" the muscle memory of the previous set of stair geometry in just a few strides, and be ready to "remember" a new set of stair geometry when encountered. You may agree or disagree, but this subject is taught in design school.


This is what I follow in the field when on inspection.

I take each stair from landing to landing.


----------



## peach (Jun 29, 2010)

the code says a flight of stairs is from landing to landing.

Gives the brain time to readjust.

You need to look at what the local jurisdiction accepts; here, if you don't touch the existing stairs, they can stay (and that's probably good since there are hundreds of historic, narrow, shallow houses... you could never make an IRC stairway fit.


----------



## GHRoberts (Jun 29, 2010)

It appears that TimNY has a found a statute that provides reasonable relief to the home owner.

If I was the AHJ. I would file an appeal for the home owner indicating that the AHJ had no objection to relief based on TimNY's statute.


----------



## peach (Jun 29, 2010)

IRC Appendix J does the same thing.


----------



## TimNY (Jun 30, 2010)

peach I'm looking at AJ601.3 "all new constructed elements shall comply with this code".

Granted, NYS has modified AJ, but I don't see how you would get around AJ601.3?


----------



## dchin (Jul 16, 2010)

Thanks everyone for the discussions - very interesting as usual. I have abandoned the idea of trying to continue the stair up to the third floor as if it were a continuation of the original existing staircase.  I came to the same conclusion as Uncle Bob that it would be dangerous to go from a compliant stair run to a non-compliant run.

Donald


----------

