# Access through bedroom?



## Inspector 102 (Sep 30, 2011)

Isn't there a code reference that prohibits one bedroom being access through another bedroom? I can't find anything and am wondering if this is a child welfare issue or building code issue I just can't find.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 30, 2011)

Inspector 102 said:
			
		

> I can't find anything and am wondering if this is a child welfare issue or building code issue I just can't find.


  It's a real estate issue.


----------



## Mule (Sep 30, 2011)

As long as there is proper emergency egress there's not a problem.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 30, 2011)

Unless you have adopted the IPMC, 404.4.2 prohibits accessing a bedroom though another bedroom as the only means of access.


----------



## rshuey (Sep 30, 2011)

Yep, we use IPMC. fatboy's correct.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 30, 2011)

So brudgers designs a house with access from one bedroom going thru another which is not prohibited in the IRC or IBC. fatboy has to issue the permit because it complies with the building code. On the day of final inspection he issues the CO and then the violation letter for the property maintinance code :banghd

Don't you just love the consistency in the codes


----------



## north star (Sep 30, 2011)

** * * **

From the `06 IPMC, *Section 404.4.2 - Access from bedrooms.* 

Bedrooms shall not constitute the only means of access to other bedrooms or

habitable spaces and shall not serve as the only means of egress from other

habitable spaces.

*Exception:* Units that contain fewer than two bedrooms.



** * * **


----------



## fatboy (Sep 30, 2011)

"Don't you just love the consistency in the codes"

Yup, ain't it great?


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 30, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> So brudgers designs a house with access from one bedroom going thru another which is not prohibited in the IRC or IBC. fatboy has to issue the permit because it complies with the building code. On the day of final inspection he issues the CO and then the violation letter for the property maintinance code :banghdDon't you just love the consistency in the codes


We have not adopted the IPMC and would not have the problem, but I am curious as to how those AHJs that have adopted the IPMC would handle the problem should it arise.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 30, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> So brudgers designs a house with access from one bedroom going thru another which is not prohibited in the IRC or IBC. fatboy has to issue the permit because it complies with the building code. On the day of final inspection he issues the CO and then the violation letter for the property maintinance code :banghdDon't you just love the consistency in the codes


IRC 2009



> R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required. Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room...


Doesn't the word 'every' have the same effect as the IPMC?


----------



## Inspector 102 (Sep 30, 2011)

Thanks for the input. I am guessing that I read the requirement in the maintenance code, however we have not adopted it. I will proceed accordingly.


----------



## knightj (Sep 30, 2011)

If I came across that during plan review, I would advise the permit applicant that as soon as the CO was issued the structure would be in violation PM code.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 30, 2011)

imhotep said:
			
		

> IRC 2009Doesn't the word 'every' have the same effect as the IPMC?


The IPMC ? is about access. 310.1 of the IRC seems to only address egress and a single egress window would apply.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 30, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The IPMC ? is about access. 310.1 of the IRC seems to only address egress and a single egress window would apply.


I take the point.  Two bedrooms, both provided egress windows with one bedroom accessed through an adjoining one.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 30, 2011)

imhotep said:
			
		

> I take the point.  Two bedrooms, both provided egress windows with one bedroom accessed through an adjoining one.


Doesn’t seem right that’s for sure, the only time you’re ever likely to even see it is in shotgun homes that were built after the civil war up until about the depression.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 30, 2011)

In our area the older industial towns have a version of the shotgun home that is a bit wider but basically is four rooms a front door a back door no halls all conected.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 30, 2011)

Can't you access the back bedroom through the EERO?


----------



## imhotep (Sep 30, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Can't you access the back bedroom through the EERO?


Funny.  Is convenience regulated?


----------



## righter101 (Sep 30, 2011)

I just read the IPMC section cited.  That seems plain silly.  It refers to not only bedrooms, but habitable spaces as well...

Would that mean that if I have a nice master bedroom suite, it would be an IPMC violation to have an attached "office" or "private study", which is clearly habitable space, accessed through the master bedroom???

Back to the original point, couldn't you use IRC 102.2

R102.2 Other laws. The provisions of this code shall not be

deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal law.

And consider the IPMC as a "provision of a local law"... and thus not allow the configuration under the IRC.  Legal logic, I think makes sense.  Allowing them to build it, then telling them it is in violation of another statue would be contrary to the IRC.

Bottom line, if you have adopted the IPMC, you couldn't allow this configuration.  If you have not adopted it, then it would be allowed.

JMHO


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 30, 2011)

> Back to the original point, couldn't you use IRC 102.2R102.2 Other laws. The provisions of this code shall not be
> 
> deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal law.
> 
> And consider the IPMC as a "provision of a local law"... and thus not allow the configuration under the IRC. Legal logic, I think makes sense. Allowing them to build it, then telling them it is in violation of another statue would be contrary to the IRC.


Good point and I believe you are correct.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 30, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Unless you have adopted the IPMC, 404.4.2 prohibits accessing a bedroom though another bedroom as the only means of access.


   It is not two bedrooms.   It's a suite.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 30, 2011)

I think you've got it righter........


----------



## brudgers (Sep 30, 2011)

If that's what the IPMC says, itsfknstupid.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 30, 2011)

It does, and it is, and on my next go-round will be amended out. Fortunately have not had to deal with a situation.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 30, 2011)

Off topic



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> If that's what the IPMC says, itsfknstupid.


Brugers, I see from your pic that you may be a dog lover.

This has absolutely nothing to do with this post or even building codes, but for some reason it made me laugh.

(its appropriate content)


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Oct 1, 2011)

Adopted the IPMC and will not approved plans in violation of the maintanence code since a certification of occupancy cannot be issued.



Section 111.1 “Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.”



111.4 Revocation. The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy of completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.



One of the other regulations that I'm aware of to withhold a certificate of occupancy until the department of highway signed off on an intersection for the emergency signal and new turn lane for the fire apparatus access leading to the new construction though the building was in complete compliance.


----------

