# Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



## TimNY (Jan 15, 2010)

01122010.jpg[/attachment:awpc2lup]A new twist on an old dead horse.The jury is out on whether stairs to an attic need to comply with the section of code for stairways.If they have a compliant stairway as attic access, does it have to comply with the section for landings?Space above is unconditioned attic (at least for now it is)

View attachment 1300


View attachment 1300


/monthly_2010_05/01122010.jpg.bd353347151e8f155416d3315b55372b.jpg


----------



## brudgers (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

OK, so they take out the stair, pass the inspection, put the stair back in after you leave.

What's been accomplished accept you've given people a greater incentive to perform work without benefit of a permit?

In other words, if it's a grey area approve it.


----------



## D a v e W (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Yes landing required top and bottom


----------



## Plans Approver (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Don't you issue C of O's for residences? Do you have section for special conditions?

I would put special conditions that limit the attic floor to attic storage purposes only and no habitable rooms such as sleeping rooms, quote the rest of the code here shall be permitted. Add any other conditions in the house and call it a day. They're on their own.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Does not meet the prescriptive requirements for "stairs", so any of those requirements do not apply. It is an access, (ladder) to an unconditioned, unoccupied space. I would require the ceiling joists of the floor below, (the attic floor) be sized for light storage.

Possible future use does NOT come into play here. JMHO

EDIT: And please, don't post the technical definition of a "ladder", what I am saying is it is not a "stair", it is merely another way to access an attic.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Does that door meet the energy code requirements?  Lets really mix it up!


----------



## fatboy (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Oh Jeff, you troublemaker.......... :lol:

But yes, good point, it is part of the thermal envelope.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Each and every time I have looked at a set of steps to the attic, they have been compliant with R311.7

The builders assume they have to be, and I have no reason to not enforce that so it has not been an issue here.  It is rare to see them anyway.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

So Jeff, if you were presented with the access in the OP, what say you?


----------



## jar546 (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> So Jeff, if you were presented with the access in the OP, what say you?


It would not have gotten past plan review.

If they made a change I would require it be compliant with all stairway requirements

If they don't agree, they can go to the appeals board and they can make the decision.

Is there an official interpretation by the ICC on this?


----------



## TimNY (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

I apologize, I think my "at least for now" comment mislead a lot of people.  The possibility of the space being finished in the future is not what I am asking you to consider.

Under consideration is an interior flight of stairs with no landing at the bottom.  Or maybe they're not stairs at all.  Or maybe it's an exterior flight of stairs, since it's outside the thermal envelope  

brudgers:  I don't know why they would have to take out the stairs.  Seems it would be cheaper to place the door at the top of the stairs, no landing required.  If they were considered a stairway.  Removing the stairs never crossed my mind.

Plans Approver:  Yes, we do issue C.O.'s.  And yes, we do put special conditions.  Namely every CO issued states "unconditioned attic" or "uncoditioned basement", or both, when they apply.  See comment above, I am not trying to initiate a pre-emptive strike.

fatboy:  I was of the thinking that they do meet the prescriptive requirements for stairs.  Tread, riser, nosing, profile, do meet the prescriptive requirements.

jar: Good call on the thermal envelope.  It's a solid door, however weatherstipping is required.

The picture was really just food for thought.  The fact of the matter is that this is a modular home, plan review and the majority of the inspecting was done and approved by New York State.  I don't really have a say in the matter.

Personally, I would have called it out at plan review and suggested the door be placed at the top of the stairway.  I don't think it would have been an issue.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

I was looking at the width, it appears to be less than 36". Still unconditioned, unoccupiable attic access for me.....redline as such and move on.

Again JMHO, obviously others have their own opinions which they are entitled to enforce.


----------



## RJJ (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

I kinda remember a brief discussion on attic stairs! :lol:

They don't comply!


----------



## fatboy (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Because they are not stairs!

"Here we go round the Mulberry bush, the Mulberry bush............"  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## jar546 (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> Because they are not stairs!


So if the treads and risers that connected the 1st floor to the 2nd floor did not have the proper landings at the top and bottom, you would not make them comply with the code because technically those risers and treads don't meet the definition of stairs?


----------



## RJJ (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Well your Honor!!! I just called it a day and told them they are on the own! :roll:


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Well your honor I never opened that *closet* door


----------



## TimNY (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

The attic stairs vs attic access has been discussed pretty thoroughly  :roll:

Of course, most of that centered around whether the "stairs" would have to comply with rise/run etc as dictated in the code.

I thought this scenario was interesting because the "attic access" _does_ comply with the stairways section of the code.  So, we have a compliant (albeit non-required) stairway, but should the landings be required?

As I mentioned earlier, I would have hopefully caught it at review.  I'm not sure that I could have forced them to change it (even at plan review), nor would I have tried to forced the issue.

I would have contacted the designer and explained the situation and recommended that the door be located at the top.  Either way there would have been a record of any correspondence.

I don't think there will ever be a consensus, but I thought it was interesting.  Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## JBI (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Tim - You know Albany's position, and I'm surprised to see that in any SFD in NYS - even a modular. Have you contacted DOS to find out who fell asleep at the review table? I'm anxious to see if they (NYS) cleaned up the Res Code for 2009 (2010? 2011?) to address this issue.  :roll:


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 18, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Moved from Residential Structural - Residential Framing



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> kilitact said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll have to read through just the OP's post because after 11 pages of..... lost track of OP.

My take is the original post is that it is a ladder and not a stairway unless there is a permanent fixed stairs going up to it. I might take it as semi-occupied but it can be treated as unoccupied if it is not in use as an occupied space at all. Only an accessible space in which a person may access equipment up in the attic.

As a designer, I may design the joists supporting the attic to support a working load like that on the occupied spaces of the floors below. I would say that this may require an non-registered or registered *design professional* (For purpose of this post, I'm not going by IRC definition but a broader industry definition for the words "*design professional*"). I delineate design professional to mean any designer in the design profession and use RDP when referring to Registered Design Profession. Non-registered obviously means Not being Registered.

As for code enforcement goes, an RDP (Refer to Chapter 2 of IRC for definition of Registered Design Professional) would not be required because of ORS 671.030 & ORS 672.060 in an Oregon project. A person licensed or not may prepare the plans and shall prepare the plans and specifications with the appropriate calculations in accordance with accepted standards. You just have to make sure the terms used on the plans and docs submitted are written and applied to not convey the person is a "Professional Engineer" or "Architect". People in your position will most often ONLY see a title use issue or an unlicensed person working on a non-exempt building.

My stance on that kind of issue is that a competent designer prepares the plans and IS registered if the project requires it under the statutes of the jurisdiction having authority where the project is located. I do believe that a home owner should not prepare building plans unless they are trained / experienced in preparing plans for buildings and has a firm understanding of how buildings are built.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 18, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> Moved from Residential Structural - Residential Framing


Kil, the answer to your question found bottom of previous page.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 18, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

I'am with Dave W,

in regards to the landings required. IRC2006 R311.5.4

Plan review should catch no landing at the bottom of stairs,

should have 36" deep min. x stair (width) landing,

handrail R311.5.6

and a light over stairs needed. R303.6

Threshold for thermal envelope protection should be required if unconditioned space.

Is 311.7 a 2009 code?


----------



## rktect 1 (Jan 18, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

I have actually done work in two seperate homes which had this exact same condition.  Except that the attic was a finished space. Homes were built probably 60 plus years prior to the new work.  With todays code, they could not build habitable space int eh attic.  Of course our oridinance would prohibit that as well if it were a two story home.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 18, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

There is an old proverbial saying, if the rise is greater then the run then it is a ladder. If the rise is less then the run then it is a stair. I take to accept an object is a stairs if the rise and run is equal but it is a non-compliant stairs.

Bottom line: if it resembles anything like that shown in the photo on first page, it is a stair not a ladder.

Stairs rules would apply regardless of what the landing point is. It can be an unoccupied attic. If the stairs is only to make it easier to get to the attic to repair HVAC or electrical. However, if I can expect a person to be able to stand up in the space at ANY point then I would design the joists for full live load standard even though it is unoccupied. The reason is the weight distribution of a person would be smaller because your weight load would be concentrated to where your feet are and the 1 to 4 joists that it would carry your load. The flooring will not mean squat as it would only carry the load between the adjacent joists. Cross bridging will only amount to a small amount to reducing deflection of the joists. However, if it is only enough space to be a crawl space then the load would be distributed over a minimum of 8-10 joists for an average size adult. So a lower live-load would make sense. That is how I would see such a space.

The stairs itself shall be made like any other stairs and the minimum landing area would be designed to full live + dead load as would a deck or floor of the occupied space. Hand rail shall be present and clearance height at landing shall be 80" (6'-8"). That would be how I look at it. At a minimum, the landing at the attic would be treated as an occupied space if there is a stairs going up to it. This is my point of view as a building designer.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 18, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				rktect 1 said:
			
		

> I have actually done work in two seperate homes which had this exact same condition.  Except that the attic was a finished space. Homes were built probably 60 plus years prior to the new work.  With todays code, they could not build habitable space int eh attic.  Of course our oridinance would prohibit that as well if it were a two story home.


They probably would have to sister every joist to make it habitable except for maybe head clearance height issues and then adding dormers to address some of that.


----------



## JMORRISON (Jan 19, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

In Washington State:

WAC 51-51-0311 Section R311--Means of egress.

((R311.1 General.)) R311.4 Vertical egress. Stairways, ramps,

exterior exit balconies, hallways and doors shall comply with this

section.

*EXCEPTION: Stairs or ladders within an individual dwelling unit used for access to areas of 200 square feet (18.6 m2) or less, and not*

*containing the primary bathroom or kitchen.*


----------



## globe trekker (Jan 19, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

TimNY,

I would agree with fatboy as well!   These are not [ yet ] a compliant set of fixed stairs, so no landing requirements kick in ( Section R311.5.4 ).    The weatherstripping requirement WOULD apply though!   Thanks Jeff!     

Also,  FWIW,  apparently we haven't yet killed this old horse yet!   :lol:   Even after 11 pages,

there is still life in this topic.     Soooooooooo, what are we waiting for, ...let's get after it!

Thanks for the pic. Tim !

.


----------



## skipharper (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

If the attic area to be accessed is designed to be converted to habitable space at some point in time (30# or 40#) floor joists, attic trusses, or whatever, are currently in place, the stairs shall comply with R311.5. Storage only can be pull down stairs, ship ladders, or just an attic opening accessible by a step ladder.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				skipharper said:
			
		

> If the attic area to be accessed is designed to be converted to habitable space at some point in time (30# or 40#) floor joists, attic trusses, or whatever, are currently in place, the stairs shall comply with R311.5. Storage only can be pull down stairs, ship ladders, or just an attic opening accessible by a step ladder.


Are you saying that if the attic is designed with 40# LL, it requires stairs?


----------



## TimNY (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				skipharper said:
			
		

> If the attic area to be accessed is designed to be converted to habitable space at some point in time (30# or 40#) floor joists, attic trusses, or whatever, are currently in place, the stairs shall comply with R311.5. Storage only can be pull down stairs, ship ladders, or just an attic opening accessible by a step ladder.


The attic joists are 2x10, full OSB floor, full height ceiling with kneewalls.  Not sure of the spans, but have yet to see a modular wider than 14'.  I would guesstimate the clear area as ~800 sqft.  If I had to bet, I would bet that the floor meets 40psf.

Edit:  the space is not conditioned, which would be the game changer for me.  I personally feel a landing is required because their is a set of [stairs] that fit the requirements for "Stairways".  It's definitely a tough one, because I wouldn't necessarily require a compliant set of stairs to the attic.  However, by that logic, I would theoretically allow them to install stairs to the attic with a 8.75" tread depth and then not require landings.  Which doesn't make sense either.  Now I'm confused.

Fortunately I am off the hook with this one.


----------



## skipharper (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

That is my opinion. One thing I have learned in 15 plus years of code enforcement is we do not use "what if". If I am reviewing a set of plans and attic trusses are designed to carry floor live loads as outlined in the IRC for bedroom and living space (30#/40#) then it is the intention of the designer to have habitable space at some point and time in the future. This may be a harsh way of going about it, but have never been challanged.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

No definition for means of egress in the IRC (unbelievable).  IBC says means of egress defined as:

*MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any **occupied** portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.*

The Stairways section of the IRC says all stairways, no exception for attic access; except stairways is in the Means of Egress chapter and as long as the attic remains *unoccupied*, no means of egress is necessary so noncompliant stairways are OK.

Someone should at least warn the owner that if they have any intention of creating habitable space accessed by the noncompliant stair, the stair won't be "existing" for the purposes of the grandfathering he thinks he's going to be able to claim when caught creating the habitable space without a permit or when you do the plan review of his alteration down the road.  Not to mention the possible zoning violation because the "attic" floor will become living area someday which could put him over height restrictions in your zoning code.  A lot of nonconforming stuff out there is created in just this way.  If there is nothing documented in the file about the nonconforming stair, it slips through the cracks.  Put it in writing for future use.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Just hang a knot rope from the attic roof rafter collar tie? Then see how hard it is to get the christmas tree in the attic!

"Someone using a  crystal ball" for those future uses again"   

I'll have to get another file cabinet for the nonconforming stairs file!


----------



## brudgers (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> No definition for means of egress in the IRC (unbelievable).


Not really when you know the history of the life safety codes and their relationship to dwellings.

Historically, the concept behind life safety in dwellings is not means of egress but means of escape.

Take a look at Chapter 24 of NFPA 101 (2003).

Nothing about means of egress.

Requiring means of egress within dwellings is just another case of ICC's Not Invented Here Syndrome...and as one would expect with a poorly thought out approach driven by a complulsion to change things every code cycle, it's a cluster.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> TJacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> > No definition for means of egress in the IRC (unbelievable).


Not really when you know the history of the life safety codes and their relationship to dwellings.

Historically, the concept behind life safety in dwellings is not means of egress but means of escape.

Take a look at Chapter 24 of NFPA 101 (2003).

Nothing about means of egress.

Requiring means of egress within dwellings is just another case of ICC's Not Invented Here Syndrome...and as one would expect with a poorly thought out approach driven by a complulsion to change things every code cycle, it's a cluster.

So the exit door in R311.4.1 isn't really an exit but a means of escape?  I'm not really interested in what 101 has to say about dwellings (nothing), and yes, I know the history and politics behind dwellings.  Go back and pull out your 1986 CABO and look up stairways.  It is in its own chapter, no Means of Egress chapter.  Same for 1998 CABO.  Guess what, a stair was a stair.  That's why you have posters on this board that would require the OP's stairway to comply.  Apparently the Means of Egress chapter in the IRC was created to further differentiate between egress elements and nonegress elements.

EERO was under the exit chapter in 1986 CABO, so I could see the confusion where an EERO might be allowed to qualify as an exit.  1998 CABO had EERO in its own chapter, I assume so it wouldn't be confused as qualifying as an exit (my assumption).  2006 IBC does not place EERO under the Means of Egress chapter but it has the exit door there, along with stairways, ramps, exterior egress balconies and hallways.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

What I'm saying is that applying means of egress concepts to dwellings inherently creates a mismatch between the requirements of the occupancy and such concepts.

That's why traditionally (i.e. over the past 100 years) the means of escape concept has been worthy of survival through all the revisions to NFPA 101.

It's also why when a code tries to apply means of egress concepts (exit access, exit, exit discharge) to dwellings, it doesn't work smoothly.

Thus NFPA talks about primary and secondary means of escape, while the IRC has an undefined means of egress and the cumbersome emergency escape and rescue openings.

Given that the IRC is supposed to be stand alone, there's no good reason for it to try warp means of egress into it...other than the fact that it has to be different from what's worked for 100 years.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

A similar observation;

It's somewhat like going to a framing inspection and seeing 4 full sheets of OSB or plywood laying unattached on top of the the garage ceiling joist.  The obvious conclusion is that after final inspection the builder or homeowner is going to secure them to the ceiling joists and use that space for storage or worse.

Do you pass a framing inspection with unattached (loose) materials laying across ceiling joists?

Uncle Bob


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Crawl space yes, R408.4

Attic area if material is left over from the rough-in inspection I will list it on the inspection report for fear it could fall on someone. Is there a code reference, can't find it?

Some times the guy paying the bills never steps on the job site!

I've seen several sheets of $25.00 exterior wall siding being used to get from the house to the road in the mud.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that applying means of egress concepts to dwellings inherently creates a mismatch between the requirements of the occupancy and such concepts.That's why traditionally (i.e. over the past 100 years) the means of escape concept has been worthy of survival through all the revisions to NFPA 101.
> 
> It's also why when a code tries to apply means of egress concepts (exit access, exit, exit discharge) to dwellings, it doesn't work smoothly.
> 
> ...


I think there was room for improvement, and I like the way it is in the 2006 IRC.  I guess that makes me a contrarian.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> I think there was room for improvement, and I like the way it is in the 2006 IRC.  I guess that makes me a contrarian.


"Because code officials like it" is not a sound basis for writing codes...even if it does serve as rational for much of the International series.

Hence, a bedroom with two doors one of which leads to a hallway and the other which leads to a bathroom with a door to the exterior does still requires an EEARO under IRC.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> TJacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> > I think there was room for improvement, and I like the way it is in the 2006 IRC.  I guess that makes me a contrarian.


"Because code officials like it" is not a sound basis for writing codes...even if it does serve as rational for much of the International series.

Hence, a bedroom with two doors one of which leads to a hallway and the other which leads to a bathroom with a door to the exterior does still requires an EEARO under IRC.

Because the bathroom is subject to locking...I'd say more but there would be no point.  The I-codes are written for code officials by code officials (supposedly).  I'm still not going to use 101 for dwellings.  We will agree to disagree.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

brudgers wrote;



> Hence, a bedroom with two doors one of which leads to a hallway and the other which leads to a bathroom with a door to the exterior does still requires an EEARO under IRC.


The IRC code wouldn't require a second exit in this case.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> brudgers wrote;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The IRC code wouldn't require a second exit in this case.

It would still require the EEARO because the door to the bathroom does't "open directly onto a public street, public alley, yard or court."

In otherwords, under the IRC a second means of egress cannot substitute for the EEARO, and in my opinion, that's just stupid.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



> It would still require the EEARO because the door to the bathroom does't "open directly onto a public street, public alley, yard or court."In otherwords, under the IRC a second means of egress cannot substitute for the EEARO, and in my opinion, that's just stupid./quote]
> 
> If memory serves me correctly from the old SBCCI days privacy locks where *require*d on bathrooms in SFR's so TJacobs brings up a valid point for brudgers scenerio


----------



## kilitact (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

brudgers wrote;



> kilitact wrote:brudgers wrote;
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


It would still require the EEARO because the door to the bathroom does't "open directly onto a public street, public alley, yard or court."

In otherwords, under the IRC a second means of egress cannot substitute for the EEARO, and in my opinion, that's just stupid. [/quote:3ob0p7al]

I'm not seeing, in the IRC code, where a EEARO, "exit door", in the room wouldn't, can't, be approved. Perhaps you can point out a code section that prohibits this??


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

2006 IBC Exception 6.	

Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an exit door or exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior exit balcony that opens to a public way.

I believe this maybe what brudgers is refering to what's lacking in the IRC but in his scenario you would have to go through the bathroom to reach the exterior door therefore it would not comply with the IBC either.

A door located in the sleeping room that leads directly outside exceeds the minimum opening requirements in the IRC and would therefore be permitted and no other EERO would be required.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

Thanks mtlogcabin, I thought we were still talking about the IRC, musta missed the leap to IBC


----------



## kilitact (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

mtlogcabin wrote:



> I believe this maybe what brudgers is refering to what's lacking in the IRC but in his scenario you would have to go through the bathroom to reach the exterior door therefore it would not comply with the IBC either.A door located in the sleeping room that leads directly outside exceeds the minimum opening requirements in the IRC and would therefore be permitted and no other EERO would be required.


Section 1026 exception #6, allows exit access doors, so if this door in the bathroom opened directly into a public way etc it would meet IBC code requirements in lieu of an EERO. I believe it would also comply with IRC


----------



## brudgers (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> If memory serves me correctly from the old SBCCI days privacy locks where *require*d on bathrooms in SFR's so TJacobs brings up a valid point for brudgers scenerio


OK, let's say the second door opens into a family room, or a landing on the back stair, etc.

All considered less safe by the IRC than a third floor window.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Section 1026 exception #6, allows exit access doors, so if this door in the bathroom opened directly into a public way etc it would meet IBC code requirements in lieu of an EERO. I believe it would also comply with IRC


Nope.  No such exception in the IRC.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> kilitact said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Section 1026 exception #6, allows exit access doors, so if this door in the bathroom opened directly into a public way etc it would meet IBC code requirements in lieu of an EERO. I believe it would also comply with IRC


Nope.  No such exception in the IRC.

An exception is not needed in the IRC. R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required.

Basements and every sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency and rescue opening. Such opening shall open directly into a public street, public alley, yard or court.

This "operable opening" can be a window, sliding door, swinging door or a pet door as long as it meets the minimum opening and sq ft demensions required by code and is located in the sleeping room and not an adjacent bedroom or family room.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: Attic Access - a new twist (you know you want to look)

WOW! We jumped from access to a unconditioned, unoccupiable attic space, to a discussion on EERO's............. hmmmmm  :?


----------

