# egress window at bedroom?



## BSSTG (Apr 26, 2012)

Greetings all,

I received the following note from a local engineer/inspector asking for some guidance. I really don't believe it would be addressed in any code.

"I called out on an inspection that a guy's fire egress window was blocked by a yard fence post and hence they could not get out of the house (about 6" out from the window).  The owner's question is "how far from the window should the post be?"  I said that is not mentioned in the code.  Any comments or helpful wisdom."

Thoughts?

thanks

BS


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 26, 2012)

Just the post? Is there a fence?

I agree the code is silent. However 36" is required for a window well

36" is needed for clearance under a deck.

You could say it is similar to R310.4 and ask the it be readily removable


----------



## cda (Apr 26, 2012)

yep not mentioned and there have been many questions about windows opening to different obstructions.

can they just move the post left or right or whatever so it does not line up with the window???

don't you love zero lot lines


----------



## ICE (Apr 26, 2012)

If the fence is on the P/L, there shouldn't be any openings in the wall.


----------



## north star (Apr 26, 2012)

*+ +*

BSSTG,

ICE has provide the correct [ code ] interpretation.....Refer to

Table R302.1, `06 IBC......No openings on the zero lot lines.

Also, see Section R310.1, " ...shall open directly into a public

street, public alley, yard or court".

Sounds like the EE&RO has not been provided on this one

particular window.

If the fence post is on the property owners own property,

then the EE&RO provisions have not been met.

*$ $*


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 26, 2012)

I would use the 36 inches that mt noted for the window well.  This would also be the case for a retaining wall that is too close to an egress window, and should be the same for other obstructions such as fences, if we are trying to meet the intent of the code.  This is supposedly not only just for people to get out, but also for fire personnel to get in.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 26, 2012)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Greetings all,I received the following note from a local engineer/inspector asking for some guidance. I really don't believe it would be addressed in any code.
> 
> "I called out on an inspection that a guy's fire egress window was blocked by a yard fence post and hence they could not get out of the house (about 6" out from the window).  The owner's question is "how far from the window should the post be?"  I said that is not mentioned in the code.  Any comments or helpful wisdom."
> 
> ...


Not sure a zero lot line was part of the OP, or how that jump was made, but if it is, they probably have bigger issues as ICE and north star pointed out.



			
				cda said:
			
		

> ...don't you love zero lot lines


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 26, 2012)

were there any other ee&ro windows in the bedroom?


----------



## BSSTG (Apr 26, 2012)

Greetings all,

I have not talked with this fellow. I expect to this pm. I can say it's not a zero lot line house because he would have called it out. He is a very proficient inspector.

thanks

BSSTG


----------



## brudgers (Apr 26, 2012)

If the code is silent, there is no requirement.

  You don't have to like that fact.

  But you are expected to conduct yourself in accordance with it.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 26, 2012)

If the code is silent, and I am sure many don't like this fact either, there is also Section 104.1 in the 2006 IRC to be considered:

2006 IRC, Section 104.1 General.  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 conformance 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.

Making the interpretation that a fence post shouldn't be directly in front of window, that a similar clear width at the exterior side of the egress window as required for a window well, *should be expected as conduct in accordance with Section 104.1.*


----------



## brudgers (Apr 26, 2012)

And if it's a shrubbery?


----------



## steveray (Apr 26, 2012)

I would probably go with the 3' people.....post, shrubbery, what ever...at least when I inspect, if it grows in and no one maintains...then that is their problem.....


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 26, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> And if it's a shrubbery?


yes, and even if it's a 'alf dead norwiegan blue, that is the BOs call.


----------



## ICE (Apr 26, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> If the code is silent, and I am sure many don't like this fact either, there is also Section 104.1 in the 2006 IRC to be considered: 2006 IRC, Section 104.1 General.  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 conformance 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.
> 
> Making the interpretation that a fence post shouldn't be directly in front of window, that a similar clear width at the exterior side of the egress window as required for a window well, *should be expected as conduct in accordance with Section 104.1.*


Before you can do any of that, you must have a code to work with.


----------



## cda (Apr 26, 2012)

agree various versions of this question have come up and if it ain't there you cannot enforce it.

Like the question of hurricanne glass in the bedroom window, code is silent, does not say the window ahs to be breakable


----------



## Mule (Apr 26, 2012)

I would think that section R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required.

The last part of the section...

Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.

If the emergency escape and rescue openings do not provide a clear path to a yard court or public way then I would say there is a violation of the code.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 26, 2012)

you are only required to have one EE&RO in each bedroom. even if all windows meet the size requirements for an EE&RO only one has to be the EE&RO. if there is a fence post or shrubbery in front of one then the other would still qualify wouldn't it?

I agree with Mule, the EE&RO must have a clear path to a yard, court or public way.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 26, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> agree various versions of this question have come up and if it ain't there you cannot enforce it.


respectfully, and without going where previous and various versions of this question have taken us, what then in your opinion is the purpose of R104.1?


----------



## steveray (Apr 26, 2012)

You are correct Sir....



			
				GBrackins said:
			
		

> you are only required to have one EE&RO in each bedroom. even if all windows meet the size requirements for an EE&RO only one has to be the EE&RO. if there is a fence post or shrubbery in front of one then the other would still qualify wouldn't it?I agree with Mule, the EE&RO must have a clear path to a yard, court or public way.


----------



## KZQuixote (Apr 26, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> respectfully, and without going where previous and various versions of this question have taken us, what then in your opinion is the purpose of R104.1?


Hi Papio,

The purpose is to:

      Interpret the code

      Adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions.

It is not to:

      Fill in requirements where the code is silent.

Bill


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 26, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Hi Papio,The purpose is to:
> 
> Interpret the code
> 
> ...


So how would you enforce it if the post was in the 36 inch minimum horizontal projection and width of a window well, but the window could still be fully opened?  My frustration is that it appears 310.2 is so poorly written, that if I take it at its literal application (an "if it doesn't say it then it is silent" approach), then anything (posts, shrubs, etc), with exception for ladders and steps only (which are permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches), may encroach into that minimum horizontal area.

_*R310.2 Window Wells.*__  The minimum horizontal area of the window well shall be 9 square feet, with a minimum horizontal projection and width of 36 inches.  The are of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened._

_Exception:  The ladder or steps required by Section R310.2.1 shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches into the required dimensions of the window well._

I give up.


----------



## cda (Apr 26, 2012)

this is more specific???

R310.2 Window Wells.


----------



## north star (Apr 26, 2012)

*+ +*





> " ...respectfully, and without going where previous and various versions of this question have taken us, what thenin your opinion is the purpose of R104.1?"


It's pretty clear that Section R104.1 gives the BO authority to give his/her "opinion"

based upon the conditions being reviewed.......If the BO thinks / believes that [ in this

case, "the post" ] is blocking THE [ only ] designated EE&RO, then the BO has the

legal authority to require the removal of the post......."If" this is not the only EE&RO

out of the sleeping room, then the post MAY not be an issue.



*+ +*


----------



## brudgers (Apr 26, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> respectfully, and without going where previous and various versions of this question have taken us, what then in your opinion is the purpose of R104.1?


  It is to interpret what is there.  Not to interpret what isn't.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 26, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> So how would you enforce it if the post was in the 36 inch minimum horizontal projection and width of a window well, but the window could still be fully opened?  My frustration is that it appears 310.2 is so poorly written, that if I take it at its literal application (an "if it doesn't say it then it is silent" approach), then anything (posts, shrubs, etc), with exception for ladders and steps only (which are permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches), may encroach into that minimum horizontal area.    _*R310.2 Window Wells.*__  The minimum horizontal area of the window well shall be 9 square feet, with a minimum horizontal projection and width of 36 inches.  The are of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened.  Exception:  The ladder or steps required by Section R310.2.1 shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches into the required dimensions of the window well._  I give up.


    In this case, the section you previously cited gives the building official latitude to reasonable interpret "window well."    That section doesn't allow "opening onto" to become a requirement for a clear path.

    Keep in mind that the 22' drop onto concrete pavement from a third floor EERO is more of a hindrance than a fence post.

  Unless you are going to require soft and fluffy pillows be installed.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 26, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> In this case, the section you previously cited gives the building official latitude to reasonable interpret "window well."  That section doesn't allow "opening onto" to become a requirement for a clear path.    Keep in mind that the 22' drop onto concrete pavement from a third floor EERO is more of a hindrance than a fence post.  Unless you are going to require soft and fluffy pillows be installed.


I am not suggesting an "opening onto" condition, merely a function of egress-ability, or being able to get out of a window, which, if I understand correctly, is the intent behind the bars, screens, and window well requirements (to keep people from getting stuck or pinned as they egress through the EER opening.

The 22' drop on to concrete, pillows or shrubbery doesn't even factor in if the 26' tall fence-post/flagpole is 6 inches out and directly centered on the EER opening.


----------



## Inspector 102 (Apr 26, 2012)

Which came first, the window or the fence. The same concerns could be had regarding window air conditioner placed in the egress window. It is a tough call and sometimes advise and explaination is all you can offer with no code to back it up. Once people understand the situation, they tend to change the hazard with a code reference.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 26, 2012)

So, if a post encroaching into the required clear width of the EERO is OK, because the window itself meets the requirement, then I would have to accept anti-burglar grates over windows? Or, I can just side over the window, or install a masonry wall on the outside? After all, the window is there, as the code specifically requires. No, you can't prevent what happens after the inspection, but I think that the intent of the code that there is a net clear opening with at the area of the EERO.


----------



## beach (Apr 26, 2012)

> 26' tall fence-post/flagpole is 6 inches out and directly centered on the EER opening.


I think I'd rather climb down the fence post or slide down the flagpole than splat on the concrete


----------



## fatboy (Apr 26, 2012)

"I think I'd rather climb down the fence post or slide down the flagpole than splat on the concrete"

If you can get out the EERO.............


----------



## beach (Apr 26, 2012)

It's amazing the things you can do when your arse is smoldering.......


----------



## tmurray (Apr 27, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that the 22' drop onto concrete pavement from a third floor EERO is more of a hindrance than a fence post.


Not for the fireman on a ladder outside the window trying to get in to haul an unconscious person out of that bedroom.


----------



## beach (Apr 27, 2012)

The purpose of an EERRO isn't really intended to provide ingress for fighters, although it's nice to have.......for example, if you installed code compliant bars on the exterior of your egress window, where would the unlatching mechanism be located?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 27, 2012)

beach said:
			
		

> The purpose of an EERRO isn't really intended to provide ingress for fighters, although it's nice to have.......for example, if you installed code compliant bars on the exterior of your egress window, where would the unlatching mechanism be located?


In the earlier code versions, (2003) extensive studies in San Diego were specifically cited in the commentary for fire personnell being able to get access, especially.  You bring up a good point about the continued relevance of that reasoning.  I am not sure if the ICC has updated their commentary in that regard for more recent code cycles.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 27, 2012)

2003 IRC Commentary - Volume 1

R310.1  (Paragraph 3) The dimensions prescribed in the code, and as illustrated in Commentary Figure 310.1 for exterior wall openings used for emergency and rescue, are based in part on extensive testing by the San Diego Building and Fire Departments to determine proper relationships of the height and width of window openings to adequately serve for both rescue and escape.  The minimum of 20 inches for the width is based upon two criteria: the width necessary to place a ladder within the window opening and the width necessary to admit a fire fighter with full rescue equipment. (Continues)


----------



## beach (Apr 27, 2012)

Another example would be multiple bedroom windows appearing to be the same size where only one meets EERO requirements, which is pretty common around here..... During an incident, we would never know which is the egress window, we would typically just ingress (break) the window that we thought would be the most advantages.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 27, 2012)

beach said:
			
		

> Another example would be multiple bedroom windows appearing to be the same size where only one meets EERO requirements, which is pretty common around here..... During an incident, we would never know which is the egress window, we would typically just ingress (break) the window that we thought would be the most advantages.


Maybe they should just call them EEOs and omit the R altogether?


----------



## Mac (Apr 27, 2012)

Emergency Individual Egress/Ingress Opening - EIEIO


----------



## righter101 (Apr 27, 2012)

Mac said:
			
		

> Emergency Individual Egress/Ingress Opening - EIEIO


Now that there is funny.!


----------



## fatboy (Apr 27, 2012)

"Emergency Individual Egress/Ingress Opening - EIEIO"

Good one!


----------



## High Desert (Apr 27, 2012)

Manufactured by Old McDonald Window & Sash Company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_mol6B9z00


----------



## tmurray (Apr 27, 2012)

beach said:
			
		

> The purpose of an EERRO isn't really intended to provide ingress for fighters, although it's nice to have.......for example, if you installed code compliant bars on the exterior of your egress window, where would the unlatching mechanism be located?


Really? In Canada it is stated the intent is for both egress and entry. We had an argument with a daycare that had a sleeping room with an existing window that didn't meet egress that since both they and the children could fit through it that it should not be required. The fact that it was required for ingress as well as egress helped bring an end to that debate.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 27, 2012)

beach said:
			
		

> The purpose of an EERRO isn't really intended to provide ingress for fighters, although it's nice to have.......for example, if you installed code compliant bars on the exterior of your egress window, where would the unlatching mechanism be located?


I had a pot-on-the stove incident once (no flames yet, just lots of smoke). The owner had compliant bars installed over the windows. You should have seen the shocked look on his face when he came home and here are all these firefighters in his home and no damage to his door, windows or security bars. He asked how did we get in and I said through your window. He asked how did you get through the security bars? I just smiled and walked away.

And to be honest it didn't matter to us if windows were EERO's or not. We were taught to take a pike pole and break the glass, catch the center rail and pull frame and all out of the wall if you were doing rescue operations. Don't have to worry about broken glass or getting a large unconscious occupant out a small sash. If that didn't work a chain saw can create an opening quickly.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Apr 27, 2012)

mac,

EIEIO, Did you steal that from George Carlin?

Made my day

pc1


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 27, 2012)

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/nobody-40682-fighters-walton.html''>http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/nobody-40682-fighters-walton.html' rel="external nofollow">



> We were taught to take a pike pole and break the glass, catch the center rail and pull frame and all out of the wall if you were doing rescue operations. Don't have to worry about broken glass or getting a large unconscious occupant out a small sash. If that didn't work a chain saw can create an opening quickly.


That will not work on iimpact resistant glass

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/nobody-40682-fighters-walton.html


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 27, 2012)

and a K-12 is not an easy piece of equipment to operate off of a ladder, at least the old beast we had


----------



## Big Mac (Apr 27, 2012)

Agree with Mule.  Obstructions are not expected in a yard, court, public way, etc.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 30, 2012)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Not for the fireman on a ladder outside the window trying to get in to haul an unconscious person out of that bedroom.


  Yes, and like the ladder, there is equipment on the truck for dealing with a fencepost.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Yes, and like the ladder, there is equipment on the truck for dealing with a fencepost.


All that equipment takes precious time to use when seconds count


----------



## brudgers (Apr 30, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> All that equipment takes precious time to use when seconds count


  A person is more likely to die because a house is two stories (by falling down the stairs) than because there is a fence post in front of an EERO.  Of course they are far more likely to commit suicide with a gun than from both of them combined.

  A code official's response should be proportional to the actual risk entailed.

  To the building's occupants that is...not to the code official's ego.


----------



## Big Mac (May 1, 2012)

We probably should eliminate stairs and just have slide chutes.


----------



## beach (May 1, 2012)

Fire poles.............


----------



## GBrackins (May 1, 2012)

with soft cushions at the bottom of each so we don't bump our bums


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 1, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> To the building's occupants that is...not to the code official's ego.


I have a hard time believing your are really so recalcitrant that you honestly believe that requesting the removal of a fence post from directly in front of a required EERO has anything to do with a code officials ego.

FYI

*re·cal·ci·trant/riˈkalsətrənt/*

*Adjective:* Having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority.

*Noun:* A person with such an attitude.

*Synonyms:* insubordinate - contumacious - refractory - disobedient


----------



## brudgers (May 1, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I have a hard time believing your are really so recalcitrant that you honestly believe that requesting the removal of a fence post from directly in front of a required EERO has anything to do with a code officials ego.   FYI  *re·cal·ci·trant/riˈkalsətrənt/ Adjective:* Having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority.  *Noun:* A person with such an attitude.  *Synonyms:* insubordinate - contumacious - refractory - disobedient


  I believe the concern is disproportionate to the risk.  And that the code's silence on the matter reflects that fact.


----------



## Big Mac (May 1, 2012)

Papio - didn't you see the picture beside the definition?


----------



## GBrackins (May 1, 2012)

on no you didn't ..... tell me no you didn't


----------



## Big Mac (May 1, 2012)

By the way, I think a rocket launcher will take out impact resistant glass.  New equipment for the fire truck.  Quicker than a saw.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 2, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I believe the concern is disproportionate to the risk.  And that the code's silence on the matter reflects that fact.


...and while I agree that the code is silent, however, it is not without context, and therefore respectfully disagree with your belief in that the silence in one part of the code should not negate the functionality of a specific requirement elsewhere in the code.  Again I reference Section 104.1, specifically the last sentence, "Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code."


----------



## brudgers (May 2, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> specifically


  Point to the provision being waived.  Specifically.


----------



## Big Mac (May 2, 2012)

Aside form all the reteric being spewed here, the bottom line is that the code requires Emergency Rescue and Escape Openings.  Section R310.1.

Minimum clear opening size must not be less than 20" in width / 24" in hieght / not mnore than 44" above the floor and in most cases provide a minimum clear opening size of not less than 5.7 square feet.

It is also quite clear that the openings are required to provide a direct access to public ways or yards.  If a post is in the way, it cannot be considered direct access.

When obstructions are placed between the rescue and escape window and the yard or public way (such as bulkheads or situations that could potentially impeed escape and rescue such as below grade areas requiring the use of window wells) the code is quite specific that there must be no less than 36" clear outside the window.

Logic would dictate that the writers of the code would view any obstruction in a like manner.  If any obstruction has the potential to block emergency egress, it should not be permitted less than 36" from the window.

Obviously we have little imput or recourse if these things are done after final inspection.  But it is not prudent to accept improper code compliant items while we are still involved in the process.


----------



## brudgers (May 2, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Aside form all the reteric being spewed here, the bottom line is that the code requires Emergency Rescue and Escape Openings.  Section R310.1.  Minimum clear opening size must not be less than 20" in width / 24" in hieght / not mnore than 44" above the floor and in most cases provide a minimum clear opening size of not less than 5.7 square feet.  It is also quite clear that the openings are required to provide a direct access to public ways or yards.  If a post is in the way, it cannot be considered direct access.  When obstructions are placed between the rescue and escape window and the yard or public way (such as bulkheads or situations that could potentially impeed escape and rescue such as below grade areas requiring the use of window wells) the code is quite specific that there must be no less than 36" clear outside the window.  Logic would dictate that the writers of the code would view any obstruction in a like manner.  If any obstruction has the potential to block emergency egress, it should not be permitted less than 36" from the window.  Obviously we have little imput or recourse if these things are done after final inspection.  But it is not prudent to accept improper code compliant items while we are still involved in the process.


  So you would fail it if the EERO opened up onto a small area behind a padlocked gate?  Or into the screened enclosure around a swimming pool?

  Or a second floor balcony?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 2, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Point to the provision being waived.  Specifically.


R310 is, effectively, and specifically waived if one can not get through the opening for emergency escape.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 2, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> So you would fail it if the EERO opened up onto a small area behind a padlocked gate?  Or into the screened enclosure around a swimming pool?
> 
> Or a second floor balcony?


As Big Mac also stated, if it does not open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way....then yes, I would deny it.

Thanks for your efforts brudgers, however I simply can not understand your position, whether it is I am just not smart enough, or I lack the desire, I am not on your side of the fence on this matter.


----------



## Big Mac (May 2, 2012)

Yes Brudgers if there was not at least 3' distance perpendicular to the window on the outside of the window, I would not approve it.  The occupants must be provided with the opportunity to escape from a burning building.  I didn't say so, the code says so.  This is not really as complicated as you are trying to make it.


----------



## fatboy (May 2, 2012)

How about running a ledger for a deck across the window? Fire guys can always cut that away with their chainsaws!  

The EERO needs to have the required clearances at the final inspection.


----------



## brudgers (May 2, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Yes Brudgers if there was not at least 3' distance perpendicular to the window on the outside of the window, I would not approve it.  The occupants must be provided with the opportunity to escape from a burning building.  I didn't say so, the code says so.  This is not really as complicated as you are trying to make it.


  If it's in a basement, you are correct.  Otherwise the code is silent on the matter.


----------



## brudgers (May 2, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> How about running a ledger for a deck across the window? Fire guys can always cut that away with their chainsaws!    The EERO needs to have the required clearances at the final inspection.


  If it is in a basement, there are required clearances.  If it ain't, there ain't.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 2, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If it is in a basement, there are required clearances.


But there in lies the rub...following the language in it's literal application, there is no code language that restricts a post or ledger in that window well space either.  Only the ladder and steps are restricted as to how far they can encroach.  It is as poorly written a section of code as one will find in the IRC.


----------



## fatboy (May 2, 2012)

So, my stair stringer, or landing ledger from my second story deck can run across the outside of my first story egress window?

EDIT: Papio beat me to the post, sorry I think the intent is pretty clear. Take it to the BOA. And no, I don't think that is an abuse of power, or making anyone dance.


----------



## brudgers (May 2, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> But there in lies the rub...following the language in it's literal application, there is no code language that restricts a post or ledger in that window well space either.  Only the ladder and steps are restricted as to how far they can encroach.  It is as poorly written a section of code as one will find in the IRC.


  Well if there is a post or ledger in the window well, then you can certainly red tag it.   If there is construction regulated by the code above grade, you are certainly within your scope to regulate the construction.

  But shrubbery is another matter.


----------



## brudgers (May 2, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> So, my stair stringer, or landing ledger from my second story deck can run across the outside of my first story egress window?  EDIT: Papio beat me to the post, sorry I think the intent is pretty clear. Take it to the BOA. And no, I don't think that is an abuse of power, or making anyone dance.


  As I've said all along.  It's disproportionate to the actual hazard.


----------



## Big Mac (May 3, 2012)

So Brudgers, I'm assuming if you had a Grand-daughter caught in a bedroom in a burning house and she was unable to escape because of posts, etc. blocking her escape route you would be okay with that?


----------



## brudgers (May 3, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> So Brudgers, I'm assuming if you had a Grand-daughter caught in a bedroom in a burning house and she was unable to escape because of posts, etc. blocking her escape route you would be okay with that?


  If someone's grand daughter doesn't get enough to eat every day, are you ok with that?  Or are you willing to pay more taxes to feed her?

  Even if her parents aren't US citizens?


----------



## Big Mac (May 3, 2012)

Just as I suspected.  No answer to that question.


----------



## Paul Sweet (May 3, 2012)

You have to look at this in 3 dimensions, not just in plan.  If the post stops far enough below the window sill that it doesn't interfere with a ladder, then it isn't an obstacle.  It might even be something to step onto so you have a shorter drop.  A shrub directly below the window might be good for breaking your fall if you have to jump out of the window.  A shrub 3 feet out from the wall is more likely to interfere with a ladder than one next to the wall.


----------



## brudgers (May 3, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Just as I suspected.  No answer to that question.


  If I had a grand daughter, that would be low on my list of worries.  Now man up and answer my questions.


----------



## Big Mac (May 3, 2012)

Brudgers - 1st let me say - I sure hope you don't have grandchildren

2nd) If/when taxes are implemented I pay them whether I agree with how those taxes are used or not.  Many times I do not, but I still pay them.

3rd) My area of responsibility is code compliance and doing my best I can to make sure that occupants of buildings are as safe as possible while still enforcing actual code requirements and reasonable interpretations thereof.

My area of responsibility does not cover the raising of taxes or justifying of how taxes are spent.

I thought that was what this bulletin board was dedicated to as well.  Perhaps I have been misinformed.


----------



## brudgers (May 3, 2012)

post deleted.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 3, 2012)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> You have to look at this in 3 dimensions, not just in plan.  If the post stops far enough below the window sill that it doesn't interfere with a ladder, then it isn't an obstacle.  It might even be something to step onto so you have a shorter drop.  A shrub directly below the window might be good for breaking your fall if you have to jump out of the window.  A shrub 3 feet out from the wall is more likely to interfere with a ladder than one next to the wall.


Those examples I would certainly find as permissable given the circumstances not preventing egress, but  the specific circumstances we were discussing have to do with built structures that prevent, not assist, egress.


----------



## AegisFPE (May 3, 2012)

I disagree with the idea of enforcing window well provisions.  There is no well that the occupant must climb out of, therefore the 36-inch dimension is irrelevant.

The code specifies a minimum 20-inch width. It would seem a reasonable interpretation would say that this dimension must be maintained. Therefore, it seems reasonable to swing a 20-inch arc from each edge of the window; if either or both are clear, then the minimum clear width is present.

The post may be a benefit, serving as a grab bar!


----------



## fatboy (May 3, 2012)

OK folks, reign it in, this is supposed to be a discussion of viewpoints  on code issue. Let's not get personal, or start attacking.


----------



## Big Mac (May 3, 2012)

As I previously stated, I thought that this bulletin board was intended for the use of persons involved in the activity of maintaining a certain level of safety for occupants of buildings by enforcing actual code requirements and reasonable interpretations thereof.

Apparently I have not been misinformed as to the purpose of this forum.  It is a shame that the proper use of the english language is so easily warped into something less than pure.


----------



## brudgers (May 3, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> It is a shame that the proper use of the english language...


  So ironic.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 3, 2012)

AegisFPE said:
			
		

> I disagree with the idea of enforcing window well provisions.  There is no well that the occupant must climb out of, therefore the 36-inch dimension is irrelevant.The code specifies a minimum 20-inch width. It would seem a reasonable interpretation would say that this dimension must be maintained. Therefore, it seems reasonable to swing a 22-inch arc from each edge of the window; if either or both are clear, then the minimum clear width is present.
> 
> The post may be a benefit, serving as a grab bar!


Window well or wishing well?  As for relevance, one of the reasons offered in the commentary regarding the minimum dimensions for a window well references a tendancy for occupants to be pinned or trapped between the frame of the opening and the window well wall opposite the EE opening.


----------



## AegisFPE (May 3, 2012)

I would classify a wishing well as a confined space, and prohibit its use as an egress route.

I fail to see how a single post could constitute a well or a wall. Does it constitute an obstruction, absolutely.

Let's make sure all obstructions are outside of the minimum prescribed clear area. I do not find that the code requires a clear landing outside the opening.

Therefore, maintaining the minimum height and width of the opening as prescribed by code, between the edge of the opening and any obstruction, seems reasonable.


----------



## GBrackins (May 3, 2012)

what I like is this is up to 87 posts and proposes autosexual reproduction and in the end it's up the AHJ's intrepration. if they don't like the AHJ's ruling then it's off to the board of appeals.

I like AegisFPE's thoughts ..... 20" wide opening requirement swung on an arc, now if they only had a rope to swing on they could safely rapeal down


----------



## Big Mac (May 4, 2012)

Originally posted by Aegis

"I disagree with the idea of enforcing window well provisions. There is no well that the occupant must climb out of, therefore the 36-inch dimension is irrelevant.

The code specifies a minimum 20-inch width. It would seem a reasonable interpretation would say that this dimension must be maintained. Therefore, it seems reasonable to swing a 20-inch arc from each edge of the window; if either or both are clear, then the minimum clear width is present."

To elaborate on an earlier posting:

It was my assumption given the original posting that the post was actually blocking the clear space required for an emergency egress and rescue opening.  It was not my assumtion that this post was below the opening of the window.  Hence my comparison to a window well condition that typically concerns itself with the area from the opening upward.

If the required opening area of 20" width, 24" height and 5.7 square feet clear opening area for a reasonable distance can be maintained, then we have given the occupant a reasonable opportunity to exit under emergency situations.

One other observation: I suppose it is possible that the post could provide a handhold or support, but isn't it just as likely that the post could seriously harm someone if they were to fall on it?  Or get hung up on t?


----------



## brudgers (May 4, 2012)

While you're being silly, a person might cut themselves on the glass in the window.


----------



## KZQuixote (May 4, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Originally posted by Aegis"I disagree with the idea of enforcing window well provisions. There is no well that the occupant must climb out of, therefore the 36-inch dimension is irrelevant.
> 
> The code specifies a minimum 20-inch width. It would seem a reasonable interpretation would say that this dimension must be maintained. Therefore, it seems reasonable to swing a 20-inch arc from each edge of the window; if either or both are clear, then the minimum clear width is present."
> 
> ...


I agree BM. If the 20 inch width can be maintained within a swung arc, the intent is met. To start treating an obstruction with the window well requirements is a reach

Bill


----------



## jpowell (Mar 28, 2013)

Hey guys.  Good discussion... (well, about 50/50...     )  I agree that Papio should enforce.  Let's look at the actual code.

*R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required. *_Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opening...__The net __clear opening__ dimensions required by this section shall be obtained by the normal operation of the emergency escape and rescue opening from the inside._ _...Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a __yard or court that opens to a public way. _

*PUBLIC WAY. Any street, alley or other parcel of land open to the outside air leading to a public street, which has been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and that has a clear width and height of not less than 10 feet (3048 mm).*



So egress windows must have a clear opening, and open directly to a public way.  This public way must have a clear width and height of 10'.  It is simply incredible to say that a post in front of the window allows this clear opening, or access to or from the window.

Here is some other backup below, in case the above code does not seem enough.  In the situation that you have a window well or egress window under a deck, the code is very clear that you need: 1. A clear opening, and 2. a clear path from the window to a yard or court.  You simply can't block it.

_---_

_*R310.1.1 Minimum opening area.*__ All emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 square feet (0.530 m__2__). _

_*R310.2 Window wells. *__The minimum horizontal area of the window well shall be 9 square feet (0.9 m__2__), with a minimum horizontal projection and width of 36 inches (914 mm). The area of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened. _

_*R310.5 Emergency escape windows under decks and porches.*__ Emergency escape windows are allowed to be installed under decks and porches provided the location of the deck allows the emergency escape window to be fully opened and provides a path not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height to a __yard or court._


----------



## jpowell (Mar 28, 2013)

Sorry, I don't see a way to edit my post.

To the point of the original question, I would say the post has to be 36" away from the window minimum, and allow the window to fully open.


----------



## globe trekker (Mar 28, 2013)

> Sorry, I don't see a way to edit my post.


jpowell,

There is quick and easy way to remedy this, so that you CAN "edit" your contributions.

Please consider becoming a Sawhorse (i.e. - a paid member).    This Forum is a great

resource!

.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Mar 28, 2013)

Has the 2012IRC addressed this with new code language? If not 2015 code change possible?

pc1


----------



## fatboy (Mar 28, 2013)

If there wasn't a change submitted by 1/1/13, then the 2015 is locked up. looks like the 2012 is pretty much unchanged, other than requireing well drainage. And looking through the code change proposals I found this;

*RB119 – 13 *



*R310.1.1, R310.1.2, R310.1.3, R310.1.5 (NEW) *



*Proponent: *Rick Davidson, City of Maple Grove, Association of Minnesota Building Officials (rdavidson@maplegrovemn.gov) 

*Revise as follows: *

*R310.1.1 Minimum opening area **unobstructed glass area for windows**. *All Where windows are used as emergency escape and rescue openings, they shall have a minimum net clear opening unobstructed glass area of 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2). 

*Exception: *_Grade _floor openings windows shall have a minimum net clear opening unobstructed glass area of 5 square feet (0.465 m2). 

*R310.1.2 Minimum opening **unobstructed glass **height. *The minimum net clear opening height The minimum unobstructed glass height shall be 24 inches (610 mm). 

*R310.1.3 Minimum opening **unobstructed glass **width. *The minimum net clear opening width The minimum unobstructed glass width shall be 20 inches (508 mm). 

*R310.1.4 Operational constraints. *Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys, tools or special knowledge. 

*R310.1.5 Doors used as emergency escape and rescue openings. *Where a door is used to meet the requirements of this section, it shall be of a size that is capable of being used for its intended purpose. 

*Reason: *This is a different and more logical approach to dealing with the size of emergency escape and rescue openings. 

The dimensions that are currently being used for egress windows have been cited in ICC Commentaries and in the UBC predecessors as being the result of a study by the San Diego Fire Department. That statement is false. The ICC offices have no copies of any study that was done by the San Diego Fire Department that establishes egress window dimensions nor is there any record of any such study existing nor is there any recollection by ICC staff that they have ever seen such a study. Discussions with long time members of the San Diego Fire Department reveal that the Department never took part in any study to determine the appropriate size of egress windows. 

Therefore, it is safe to assume that the dimensions in the code for egress windows exist without any scientific basis. 

However, if one is going to have emergency escape and rescue windows, one must have certain size requirements for those windows. But the rules should be reasonable and defensible. 

It has been stated by some folks that the reason for the 20 inch width requirement is that it accommodates the width of a fire ladder (20 inches). The area is necessary because "the studies" indicated that such a size (5.7 square feet) is necessary to allow emergency personnel to enter the room through the window wearing necessary safety gear (24 inches of height and 5.7 square ft). I’m not sure how that justifies the 5.0 square foot openings permitted at grade. 

I don’t know if there is a standard width for ladders or not. But the fallacy that exists is the assumption that the window will be open when a rescue attempt is made. Isn’t it more likely that the window will be closed? Isn’t it more likely that the following photos depict actual conditions? Isn’t it more likely that a rescue person would need to break the window to initiate a rescue? If the ladder is placed in the window opening, won’t it impede access into the room, especially with a casement window? Isn’t it more reasonable to regulate the rescue opening based on the glass size of the closed window rather than the openable size of the window since that is more than likely how rescue personnel will encounter the window? Won’t rescue personnel break out any glass in an opening rather than try to open the window? Of course. 

Therefore, it seems to make much more sense to base emergency escape and rescue window requirements on glass size rather than openable area. Even for occupants of the room, it may be more appropriate to break the glass rather than trying to reach operating hardware that may be located where the air is untenable. 

Last, there is language proposed to address doors used as rescue and escape openings. The size of the door entering the room is unregulated. This is the primary exit from the room. If a door used as the primary exit is not regulated, why should a secondary door face stricter limits? The proposed language requires that the door be "capable of being used for its intended purpose". This is similar to language approved by the IRC committee in the past and gives the field inspector discretion over door sizes. The inspector may use location, size of the occupant, or whatever limitations seem reasonable to establish the opening size.


----------



## ICE (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr Davidson's suggestion would result in larger windows. As long as a door meets all of the requirements of a EERO for size and minimum dimensions it's a done deal.  One could have a strange door that's 20" wide 5' tall and runts could ride their 10 speed to safety.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 29, 2013)

Mr. Davidson has dozens of proposals, most of which I find WAY off base..........just posting what is on the agenda. Y'all come on down and vote!


----------



## GBrackins (Mar 29, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> It has been stated by some folks that the reason for the 20 inch width requirement is that it accommodates the width of a fire ladder (20 inches).
> 
> Isn’t it more likely that a rescue person would need to break the window to initiate a rescue?
> 
> If the ladder is placed in the window opening, won’t it impede access into the room, especially with a casement window?


when I was a firefighter many years ago we were taught in the academy you raise your ladder and allow it to drop into the window allowing the ladder to break the glass of the window you wanted to gain entry through. The ladder was the set up adjacent to the window, not into the window because this would obstruct the opening, plus occupants could attempt to climb down the ladder and end up knocking firefighters off the ladder in their panic.

we were also taught that once we reached the window (off to the side) to lock into your ladder and to use a pike pole and remove the window including frame from the opening if possible thus creating a more unobstructed opening than merely breaking a pane of glass. You would then reach in with an axe and sound the floor (thus the 44" max. sill height) to ensure there was a floor once you entered through the opening.

amazing sometimes the reasoning (or lack) for things that we've been doing for years


----------

