# NYC residence "convenience stair"



## griffino (Jun 28, 2020)

I have a client who lives in a 12 story building in NYC. They purchased the unit below theirs and want to cut a hole and combine the two units with a new stair. We will need to comply with the 1968 Building Code of the City of New York https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/building_code/1968_building_code_v1.pdf.

My question is whether this stair would need to comply with all the requirements of an Interior Stair under 27-375. 

The definition of "Interior Stair" is "A stair within a building, that serves as a required exit". I do not believe this stair serves as a required exit, as we are not changing the means of egress from each individual floor.

I see another definition for an "Access Stair - A stair between two floors which does not serve as a required exit." This seems more applicable here, but I don't see access stair requirements outlined elsewhere in the code. I only find that they can be unenclosed and a Spiral Stair can be used as an Access Stair.

Thanks for the help and if anyone has questions please let me know.


----------



## cda (Jun 28, 2020)

Sounds like an access stair.

But, when are they going to update to a newer code??  1968???

Seems like present code would apply?

Seems like high rise codes might kick in??

Seems like there may be a problem opening a floor in a high rise?


Seems like set down with the building Dept, before going to far down the avenue!!


----------



## griffino (Jun 28, 2020)

cda said:


> Sounds like an access stair.
> 
> But, when are they going to update to a newer code??  1968???
> 
> ...



In NYC you have the option to use the older code for certain aspects of older buildings. Means of Egress is one.


----------



## cda (Jun 28, 2020)

I need to move there,,,

So I can install an escape slide.


----------



## ICE (Jun 28, 2020)

griffino said:


> In NYC you have the option to use the older code for certain aspects of older buildings. Means of Egress is one.


Does what you propose fit within the narrow definition of a Means of Egress?


----------



## griffino (Jun 28, 2020)

ICE said:


> Does what you propose fit within the narrow definition of a Means of Egress?



My argument is that the new stair is not part of a "Required Exit" and therefore is not part of the Means of Egress system. Therefore it wouldn't need to comply with what the 1968 code calls an "Interior Stairway". The 1968 code does not have a definition for "Means of Egress" but it does have this for "Exit"

_EXIT.- A means of egress from the interior of a building to an open exterior space which is provided by the use of the following, either singly or in combination: exterior door openings, vertical exits, exit passageways, horizontal exits, interior stairs, exterior stairs, fire towers or fire escapes; but not including access stairs, aisles, corridor doors or corridors
_
Does that mean I can say its an "access stair"?


----------



## griffino (Jun 28, 2020)

In fact, I'm required not to alter the means of egress by the DOB for the type of permit I'm applying for. I'm also seeing some guidance from the DOB saying you can have an "interior access stair" between apartments. So I think I'm on the right track. Would love if someone with experience here can confirm though!


----------



## cda (Jun 28, 2020)

From your research appears 

access stair is approved by code,

Just check other provisions, since you are in a high rise.

Most present codes allow an opening between floors, with no added requirements.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 28, 2020)

is the building sprinklered?


----------



## griffino (Jun 29, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> is the building sprinklered?



It's not sprinklered


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 29, 2020)

HMMM!


----------



## cda (Jun 29, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> HMMM!




It was built in the 70's

A lot of high rises with out fire sprinklers, makes sense, doesn't it?

They burn up, and not down!


----------



## griffino (Jun 29, 2020)

cda said:


> It was built in the 70's
> 
> A lot of high rises with out fire sprinklers, makes sense, doesn't it?
> 
> They burn up, and not down!



Closer to 1870s... It was built around 1905


----------



## khsmith55 (Jun 29, 2020)

Even if a "sub-standard" stair is permitted I would be scared to death to design one. The first time someone falls down the stair guess who they are going to come after. When the Attorney asks why you designed a "dangerous" stair are you going to reply, because I could? His next question is going to be didn't you know it was a "dangerous" stair based on current Codes and data? Tread lightly and be carful.

Ken


----------



## cda (Jun 29, 2020)

griffino said:


> Closer to 1870s... It was built around 1905




So still trying to figure out how 1968 building code applies??


----------



## cda (Jun 29, 2020)

khsmith55 said:


> Even if a "sub-standard" stair is permitted I would be scared to death to design one. The first time someone falls down the stair guess who they are going to come after. When the Attorney asks why you designed a "dangerous" stair are you going to reply, because I could? His next question is going to be didn't you know it was a "dangerous" stair based on current Codes and data? Tread lightly and be carful.
> 
> Ken




So why is it dangerous ?


----------



## griffino (Jun 29, 2020)

1968 code applies, its not a question

I understand I can be sued for any number of reasons. I would not tell a client they need an exit stair in their apartment if its common practice to provide a less stringent stair.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 29, 2020)

Floor to floor height, rise and run, handrails, headroom, floor framing are all issues of concern.


----------



## griffino (Jun 29, 2020)

Because floor to floor height is more than 12' (its 12'-9") the stair would require an intermediate landing if its part of means of egress. Client just wants to know if they can get rid of the landing and make the stair 30" wide rather than 36".


----------



## steveray (Jun 30, 2020)

I think you can call it an access stair, that might get you out of the rating, but the landings and other stair requirements might still apply...Not an NY guy...


----------



## cda (Jun 30, 2020)

Still trying to figure out the problem???

Except for it being in a high rise, open stairs are done all the time.


https://www.bing.com/images/search?...95461CA05EEA7A80C&selectedIndex=71&ajaxhist=0


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 30, 2020)

"wrong" in so many ways.


----------



## tbz (Jul 1, 2020)

griffino said:


> Because floor to floor height is more than 12' (its 12'-9") the stair would require an intermediate landing if its part of means of egress. Client just wants to know if they can get rid of the landing and make the stair 30" wide rather than 36".



NYC has many buildings that are still under the 1968 code when doing existing building renovations.  Not sure why they don't push to the newer adoptions, but each building is designated to different codes based on the address and when built.

As a secondary non-MOE stair flight under the 1968 code, going to the 12'-9" adds 1 riser to the stair flight when you look at they now allow 147", or 12'-3" in the stair flights between risers.

however, I would strongly suggest staying with the 36" width over reduced 30" width, adding one riser is not that much of a change from the standard compared to reducing the width by 1/6th.

Just my thoughts on it.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 3, 2020)

No convenience gained unless it is wide enough to carry things up and down.


----------



## VillageInspector (Jul 6, 2020)

I live just north of NYC and I'm aware that NYC has its own stand alone codes which differs from the remainder of the state however I would check with legal counsel on anything that takes you from the current code back to 1968. That seems suspect to say the least. In addition as someone else pointed out it sounds to me like you are creating a setting for a lawsuit in the city of litigation hence my comment to be sure that the section you are relying on so heavily is applicable.


----------



## griffino (Jul 10, 2020)

tbz said:


> NYC has many buildings that are still under the 1968 code when doing existing building renovations.  Not sure why they don't push to the newer adoptions, but each building is designated to different codes based on the address and when built.
> 
> As a secondary non-MOE stair flight under the 1968 code, going to the 12'-9" adds 1 riser to the stair flight when you look at they now allow 147", or 12'-3" in the stair flights between risers.
> 
> ...



My thought as well, that the intermediate landing would not be required.


----------



## MACV (Jul 13, 2020)

I ws forced to modify the design of a high rise dormitory in Manhattan during construction and found the plans examiner to be unreasonably strict and I was using a very expensive code expediter but perhaps I didn't pay him enough.  It might help to know the borough.
In the 68 code the minimum nominal width of doors to habitable rooms is 32" and the minimum width for a stair to a mezzanine is 30".  Since the 68 code doesn't provide minimum dimensions for an "access stair" the plans examiner might require 30" or 32" or perhaps 36" if he's keen on high rise fire safety or you didn't hire the right expediter.  
You can always go in and ask. 
Is the issue a tight floor plan, structural limitations or a client who doesn't appreciate the value of a more generous stairway?


----------



## griffino (Jul 13, 2020)

MACV said:


> I ws forced to modify the design of a high rise dormitory in Manhattan during construction and found the plans examiner to be unreasonably strict and I was using a very expensive code expediter but perhaps I didn't pay him enough.  It might help to know the borough.
> In the 68 code the minimum nominal width of doors to habitable rooms is 32" and the minimum width for a stair to a mezzanine is 30".  Since the 68 code doesn't provide minimum dimensions for an "access stair" the plans examiner might require 30" or 32" or perhaps 36" if he's keen on high rise fire safety or you didn't hire the right expediter.
> You can always go in and ask.
> Is the issue a tight floor plan, structural limitations or a client who doesn't appreciate the value of a more generous stairway?



That's a really helpful response, thanks.

The issue is a bit of all three. The owners want to limit the scope of demolition on the upper level, so it really limits the options and size of the stair. A 36" stair is technically feasible but the scope of demolition would be much greater due to the relationship between the upper and lower level. The planning is basically totally unrelated.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 13, 2020)

So, go with 36" or he will live to regret he didn't.


----------



## griffino (Jul 13, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> So, go with 36" or he will live to regret he didn't.



What does this mean? 

Client is very competent and understands 36" is highly preferred and recommended. They own several properties and have been through the process many times before. They do most of their own interior design and are very good at it. I am looking for info on what the requirements are, opinions are fine but we can all agree that 36" is a good recommended minimum when no codes apply. If client wants 30" and no regulations apply then they should get 30".


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 13, 2020)

griffino said:


> What does this mean?
> 
> Code minimum is "legal", you have so told them, right?
> 
> Client is very competent and understands 36" is highly preferred and recommended. They own several properties and have been through the process many times before. They do most of their own interior design and are very good at it. I am looking for info on what the requirements are, opinions are fine but we can all agree that 36" is a good recommended minimum when no codes apply. If client wants 30" and no regulations apply then they should get 30".


----------



## DebStat21 (Jan 25, 2021)

I would agree that you fall into the definition of access stair by the 1968 code.  Your means of egress does not change at both floors.  You are providing an additional convenience stair, which the code defines as an access stair.  It would be nice if the 1968 code specified what is allowed for an access stairs a bit more.  I would say take guidance from the code for rails and handrails.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 25, 2021)

griffino said:


> Because floor to floor height is more than 12' (its 12'-9") the stair would require an intermediate landing if its part of means of egress. Client just wants to know if they can get rid of the landing and make the stair 30" wide rather than 36".



owner is "Skinny"?


----------



## instantmessenger (Jan 25, 2021)

Yes you are on the right track, it's an access stair. This is what some would call a convenience stair. The doors to the separate units need to be maintained as they were previous to being combined.


----------



## Ash1 (Mar 26, 2021)

It is called as an access stairs but does anyone know what are the minimum dimensions that we need to follow for an access stairs since the code provides the definition of an access stairs but nothing else.


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 1, 2021)

griffino said:


> Because floor to floor height is more than 12' (its 12'-9") the stair would require an intermediate landing if its part of means of egress. Client just wants to know if they can get rid of the landing and make the stair 30" wide rather than 36".


trying to do it on the "cheap"? Must be a "skinny" guy


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Ask your E & O or property insurance carrier what they think. Will owner indemnify you?


----------

