# When stairs need not comply



## Glenn (Jul 27, 2021)

I was involved with a 2021 IRC modification regarding which stairs and ramps must comply with IRC provisions.  311.7 excludes stairs to nonhabitable attics and crawlspaces.  It also excludes stairs "not within or serving a building, deck, or patio".  This is meant to address "hardscape" stairs in the landscaping.

Though I supported this modification and it was approved, does not mean I think it's done.  Code development is never done.  I know of many professionals and jurisdictions that do not agree with this and will be amending it locally to require all exterior stairs to comply, regardless of what they serve or not.  That is a message to me that maybe this section needs more work.

So, I made this video specifically to prompt discussion on this topic.  It includes a clip from my On-Demand Course, and a walk around of my property to really talk about American homes and reality.  I am preparing proposals for the 2024 IRC and I welcome your comments on this subject.

Exterior walking surfaces, ramps, stairs, driveways, patios, porches, decks, concrete slabs, crusher fine pathways, etc, have many names, but what are the humans actually doing on these surfaces and what is the probability of hazard?  What makes a concrete ramp from the sidewalk to my deck different than a concrete driveway in the same place.  We walk up our driveway just as we would a ramp.  So many subjects in the code are hard to interpret consistently when we get to these outdoor features, and that makes things very difficult for dreaming homeowners and the contractors and designers trying to serve them.

One comment I have heard is that there should be a fully compliant path from the required egress door to the public way, and if there are stairs within that path then even if separated by sidewalk and yard, it is "serving" the building.  Maybe "serving" is not the correct term.

Let's talk!  Code development takes a village!


----------



## tbz (Jul 27, 2021)

Glenn and everyone,

Here in lies the problem with to a public way.

For those of you who only live in the city or suburbs the thought gets lost quickly what do the people who live on a large property do with the term public way.

Up until recently I lived smack dab in the middle of 30 acers with a 1,300 foot long driveway, I had many stairs around the landscaping around the house.

The IRC is a simplified code to build under getting from the house to grade in an emergency is all that is needed IMO.

Might sound good to public way on 1/2 acre lots, but for others that can be a costly tab.

It was the same issue with sprinklers, when you are on a well that pumps 4 gallons a minute, what are you feeding.

Though I can see the 2021 from a deck, I have different thoughts about patios.

1.5 cents on a Tuesday


----------



## fatboy (Jul 27, 2021)

Excellent video Glenn, and excellent talking points. 

Drive as a ramp, never really thought of it as such, but a great point.

Series of "non-landings" creating four rises. Oops? 

Which one is the required egress path, what needs to be done to be compliant? 

Same as you, I would have never thought twice about your set up. 

I did call it once one a custom home sidewalk, probably 10-12 rises, about 24" winder treads, that were non-compliant (varied widths), going to the public ROW. I required a continuous handrail. My boss actually supported it, and we got it done, at least for the Final. 

It was down two weeks later.


----------



## JCraver (Jul 27, 2021)

Good video.  

Serving is definitely not the right word, that's going to get "interpreted" to death by overzealous inspectors..

The IRC should end at grade.  Rails on landscape stairs is the same thing as guards around window wells - dumb, and should not be a code requirement.


----------



## my250r11 (Jul 27, 2021)

I personally would call the drive way a vehicular path and doesn't need to meet slope but the public sidewalk should meet the ADA requirements for walkways and ramps if needed. That's how we deal with it here. As others have said I probably wouldn't have worried about your landscaping stairs.


----------



## Inspector Gift (Jul 27, 2021)

What is often forgotten overlooked is the INTENT or PURPOSE statement of the applicable codes. This oversight may be from lack of experience or understanding, or intentional.  But knowing the intent and purpose of the code is a fundamental requirement before any building official can rightly apply the application, or render an interpretation as to it's application.

*2021 IRC*
"*R101.3 Purpose.*  The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations."


----------



## Glenn (Jul 27, 2021)

Inspector Gift said:


> What is often forgotten overlooked is the INTENT or PURPOSE statement of the applicable codes. This oversight may be from lack of experience or understanding, or intentional.  But knowing the intent and purpose of the code is a fundamental requirement before any building official can rightly apply the application, or render an interpretation as to it's application.
> 
> *2021 IRC*
> "*R101.3 Purpose.*  The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations."


I'm trying to understand how your comment applies to this?  Please explain a little more.  I don't want to respond from a guess.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 27, 2021)

my250r11 said:


> I personally would call the drive way a vehicular path and doesn't need to meet slope but the public sidewalk should meet the ADA requirements for walkways and ramps if needed. That's how we deal with it here. As others have said I probably wouldn't have worried about your landscaping stairs.


Are you referring to my sidewalk as the public sidewalk?  It's a private sidewalk, but perhaps you're referring to it being the sidewalk inviting the public to walk up to my door?


----------



## Glenn (Jul 27, 2021)

tbz said:


> Glenn and everyone,
> 
> Here in lies the problem with to a public way.
> 
> ...


And that is why there will always be local code amendments.  Many years ago there was a simplified version of the UBC for "small jurisdictions".  I'm working with Denver to assist with their 2021 code updates, and they are planning to remove this exception.  They state that their small lots, density, and the common accessory structures and ADUs require safer paths of travel around lots.  They also want to require guards around large area wells and other retaining walls.  As urban living becomes increasingly regulated and rural living increasingly pushing back, I am very curious what will see in the next decades of code administration.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 27, 2021)

fatboy said:


> Excellent video Glenn, and excellent talking points.
> 
> Drive as a ramp, never really thought of it as such, but a great point.
> 
> ...


Deep treads are really a unique issue to decks and exterior stairs.  It is rare to non-existent to see interior treads have depths more than the minimum.  However, in decks, deep treads are common.  Using up valuable square footage is no longer an issue, and people like treads to act as seats and to place planters and pots.  For rises of 6 or less, deep treads are very common.  However, this creates questions that did not previously need to be answered.  Should 24 inch deep treads still be held to the 3/8 uniformity?  What about 30 inches?  Would 4 or more 30 inch deep treads really require a handrail for assistance? (like in the video) I don't like complicating the code, but I do worry the code industry is getting less and less comfortable to make calls for the intent and purpose.  This drives the need to spell more subjects out definitively.   Of course... that is a never-ending road to go down.


----------



## ICE (Jul 27, 2021)

We have a bunch of satellite offices and each one has it's own way of dealing with this issue.  That's not to say that there's twenty-five different approaches because obviously there is some overlap.  But you'll have to ask somebody every time it comes up.  I have worked in more than a few.  Some office managers would regulate the neighbor’s yard steps if they could and some some don't even see the steps.  One requires handrail on the gunite steps leading to the top of a pool slide.  That's always an afterthought and then it has to be bonded to the equipotential bonding grid.

My opinion is that if the stairs are not connected to the building, porch or a deck that is also attached to the building, the stairs are not regulated by the code.

Here's Costco striving to get sued:


----------



## tbz (Jul 28, 2021)

Glenn,

? for you, I see you lived in your place for 20 plus, in my 56 plus years alive I have never lived in a residence that has had a paved driveway of any type of hard surface.

pea gravel and 3/4 gravel have been the norm, going to be putting down 3/4 next month were I am at, and all my walkways are gravel also.

Now think how substituting your driveway and walkway with gravel changes things.

The IRC is a minimum, not a ultimate have and unlike your state, many here in the east have State Wide building codes that have to take in the rural with the city in mind.

Not just the local or county AHJ were they can tailor it to the local likings, like Denver does.


----------



## steveray (Jul 28, 2021)

classicT said:


> Engineers should not be providing Special Inspection on their own projects. Special inspectors should be hired by the building owner.
> 
> *1703.1.1 Independence*
> An approved agency shall be objective, competent and independent from the contractor responsible for the work being inspected. The agency shall disclose to the building official and the registered design professional in responsible charge possible conflicts of interest so that objectivity can be confirmed.
> ...





ICE said:


> We have a bunch of satellite offices and each one has it's own way of dealing with this issue.  That's not to say that there's twenty-five different approaches because obviously there is some overlap.  But you'll have to ask somebody every time it comes up.  I have worked in more than a few.  Some office managers would regulate the neighbor’s yard steps if they could and some some don't even see the steps.  One requires handrail on the gunite steps leading to the top of a pool slide.  That's always an afterthought and then it has to be bonded to the equipotential bonding grid.
> 
> My opinion is that if the stairs are not connected to the building, porch or a deck that is also attached to the building, the stairs are not regulated by the code.
> 
> ...


Because they are blocking the accessible route? Or the 7 other violations there?


----------



## steveray (Jul 28, 2021)

2 sections we have to deal with now.....If we chose to expand that, then that is on us and the ICC process:

R311.1 Means of egress. Dwellings shall be provided with a
means of egress in accordance with this section. The means
of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of
vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the
dwelling to the required egress door without requiring travel
through a garage. The required egress door shall open directly
into a public way or to a yard or court that opens to a public
way.

That gets you to the door (opening), and technically not even out of the house in theory....

R311.3.1 Floor elevations at the required egress doors.
Landings or finished floors at the required egress door
shall be not more than 11/2 inches (38 mm) lower than the
top of the threshold.
Exception: The landing or floor on the exterior side
shall be not more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the
top of the threshold provided the door does not swing
over the landing or floor.
Where exterior landings or floors serving the required
egress door are not at grade, they shall be provided with
*access to grade *by means of a ramp in accordance with
Section R311.8 or a stairway in accordance with Section
R311.7.

That gets you to grade.....You are safe...If you trip going across you lawn or down the driveway or the "landscape steps" to get the mail, that will hopefully never be my problem....


----------



## Inspector Gift (Jul 28, 2021)

Glenn said:


> I'm trying to understand how your comment applies to this?  Please explain a little more.  I don't want to respond from a guess.


Glenn, You started the discussion regarding code language regarding stairs, but then broadly expanded the discussion by mentioning "Exterior walking surfaces, ramps, stairs, driveways, patios, porches, decks, concrete slabs, crusher fine pathways, etc,...". 

The City of Sandy is predominately located on a hillsides and ravines, with the majority of homes having sloping driveways and has ice and snow every winter.   We have adopted a policy to require One-and-Two Family Residential homes be provided with a "Safe Walkway to the street, sidewalk or the public way".   This policy applies the same standards for stairs, handrails and ramps to the required Safe Walkway.   Oregon Building Codes Division questioned our requirement, saying that it was not supported by the Residential Code.  However, we pointed to Intent and Purpose as being the fundamental standard, and that our policy was consistent with the Intent statement.  Further more, the duties and powers of the Building Official states that the Building Official has the authority to render interpretations and adopt policies that are in compliance with the intent and purpose of the code.   Our policy is to provide a safe walkway from the primary entrance to the public way.  The driveway may be used as part of the Safe Walkway if it does not exceed a slope of 1 unit vertical to 12 units horizontal (8.3%) and does not have a cross slope greater than 1/4 inch per foot (2%).

So back to your question regarding my statement.  The intent of the building code is to provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety - including fire fighters and emergency responders.  And I would suggest that also includes building inspectors, mail carriers, delivery persons, etc...


----------



## ORinspector (Jul 28, 2021)

I would prefer we concentrate on buildings and requirements allowing people to exit through at least one door and to grade. I noticed Glenn has a trampoline in his backyard which certainly has the potential for injury, but as regulators, we shouldn't be telling him he can't have one. Let's concentrate on buildings which is our field of expertise and give homeowners the freedom to landscape in a way that works for them, whether it involves non-required stairs, ramps, etc. -- or not.  I live outside of town and have a fairly long gravel driveway, and a gravel walkway, and that works for me.  I am also in the process of building some trails on the property that will be woodchips and fairly steep through our woods. At some point we need to draw a line and not regulate everything...


----------



## my250r11 (Jul 28, 2021)

Glenn said:


> Are you referring to my sidewalk as the public sidewalk?  It's a private sidewalk, but perhaps you're referring to it being the sidewalk inviting the public to walk up to my door?


No Glenn I was referring to the actual public sidewalk that is usually in the ROW not on your side of the property line


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 28, 2021)

OK Glen, waited long enough; If a man's home is no longer to be his castle, then what of personal/visitor safety and accessibility?
ADA avoids SF's but gentrification of present and future occupant needs do not.
Do insurance companies see an advantage to considering this?


----------



## tbz (Jul 28, 2021)

Inspector Gift said:


> Glenn, You started the discussion regarding code language regarding stairs, but then broadly expanded the discussion by mentioning "Exterior walking surfaces, ramps, stairs, driveways, patios, porches, decks, concrete slabs, crusher fine pathways, etc,...".
> 
> The City of Sandy is predominately located on a hillsides and ravines, with the majority of homes having sloping driveways and has ice and snow every winter.   We have adopted a policy to require One-and-Two Family Residential homes be provided with a "Safe Walkway to the street, sidewalk or the public way".   This policy applies the same standards for stairs, handrails and ramps to the required Safe Walkway.   Oregon Building Codes Division questioned our requirement, saying that it was not supported by the Residential Code.  However, we pointed to Intent and Purpose as being the fundamental standard, and that our policy was consistent with the Intent statement.  Further more, the duties and powers of the Building Official states that the Building Official has the authority to render interpretations and adopt policies that are in compliance with the intent and purpose of the code.   Our policy is to provide a safe walkway from the primary entrance to the public way.  The driveway may be used as part of the Safe Walkway if it does not exceed a slope of 1 unit vertical to 12 units horizontal (8.3%) and does not have a cross slope greater than 1/4 inch per foot (2%).
> 
> So back to your question regarding my statement.  The intent of the building code is to provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety - including fire fighters and emergency responders.  And I would suggest that also includes building inspectors, mail carriers, delivery persons, etc...


So I am guessing from your statement on driveways you don't allow them to be over 1 in 12 is that correct?

and you will require someone in the middle of a large parcel of land lets say 40 plus acers to have a pathway from the middle of that property were the home is to the street, comply with that requirement.

Heck most of the streets were I am located are dirt, not even paved and the roads exceed 1 in 8.

I would agree with the state questioning you,  your local authority is over stepping the intent of the IRC and the minimum code.  If your going to extend all the way to the public right of way, scrap the IRC and just require every building to be built under the IBC.


----------



## steveray (Jul 29, 2021)

tbz said:


> So I am guessing from your statement on driveways you don't allow them to be over 1 in 12 is that correct?
> 
> and you will require someone in the middle of a large parcel of land lets say 40 plus acers to have a pathway from the middle of that property were the home is to the street, comply with that requirement.
> 
> ...


Even the IBC does not always require a path to the public way....1028.5


----------



## Inspector Gift (Jul 29, 2021)

tbz said:


> So I am guessing from your statement on driveways you don't allow them to be over 1 in 12 is that correct?
> 
> and you will require someone in the middle of a large parcel of land lets say 40 plus acers to have a pathway from the middle of that property were the home is to the street, comply with that requirement.
> 
> ...


City of Sandy development code standards allowed for very steep driveways at time that our policy for a safe walkway was created.  There are existing driveways that exceed 34% slope and are a challenge to ascend in dry weather, but are very unsafe and impossible to ascend during winter conditions.    The City has since revised the standards for driveways and now limit slope to 15%, and also tightened the requirement so that all driveways must be asphalt or concrete.  We do not allow a driveway to be used as part of the "Safe Walkway" if the slope exceeds 8.3% (1 inch per foot) -  which is the same for ADA ramps.

Please keep in mind that I work in a small city.  Any comments involving gravel driveways and long distances from to the public way are not applicable within City Limits.  There are always those who bring up exceptions that appear to run contrary to the code, but can still comply with the intent and purpose of the code. Which brings me to my initial point:  The Building Official is authorized to create interpretations and policies based upon the INTENT and PURPOSE of the code.


----------



## Inspector Gift (Jul 29, 2021)

steveray said:


> Even the IBC does not always require a path to the public way....1028.5


I do not agree with your comment.  Please look closer at IBC Section 1028.5. 
*1028.5 Access to a public way.*  The exit discharge shall provide a direct and unobstructed access to a public way.

*Exception:*  Where access to a public way cannot be provided, a safe dispersal area shall be provided where all of  the following are met:
1.  The area shall be of a size to accommodate not less than 5 square feet for each person.
2.  The area shall be located on the same lot not less than 50 feet away from the building requiring egress.
3.  The area shall be permanently maintained and identified as a safe dispersal area.
4.  The area shall be provided with a safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building. 

For the record, The City of Sandy's Development Code has always required a safe walkway from commercial buildings to the public sidewalk or public way.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 29, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> OK Glen, waited long enough; If a man's home is no longer to be his castle, then what of personal/visitor safety and accessibility?
> ADA avoids SF's but gentrification of present and future occupant needs do not.
> Do insurance companies see an advantage to considering this?


I want to reply, but honestly I don't know what you are trying to say.  The "OK glen, waited long enough" sounds like disagreement of some sort, but I haven't share a single opinion of mine, so I'm confused.  This is a discussion point only.  Please clarify so that I can discuss.

Personally, my house is my castle and I could cut the IRC mandatory requirements in half if it were up to me.  But it's not... so I pose discussion points to find out what we collectively can agree on.  Then I will write 2024 proposals while I build my hideout deep in the mountains to escape society, ha, ha!


----------



## Glenn (Jul 29, 2021)

Inspector Gift said:


> The Building Official is authorized to create interpretations and policies based upon the INTENT and PURPOSE of the code.


This is one of my favorite.  30% of the pages of the I-code family require the building official's discretion.


----------



## JCraver (Jul 29, 2021)

Inspector Gift said:


> Glenn, You started the discussion regarding code language regarding stairs, but then broadly expanded the discussion by mentioning "Exterior walking surfaces, ramps, stairs, driveways, patios, porches, decks, concrete slabs, crusher fine pathways, etc,...".
> 
> The City of Sandy is predominately located on a hillsides and ravines, with the majority of homes having sloping driveways and has ice and snow every winter.   We have adopted a policy to require One-and-Two Family Residential homes be provided with a "Safe Walkway to the street, sidewalk or the public way".   This policy applies the same standards for stairs, handrails and ramps to the required Safe Walkway.   Oregon Building Codes Division questioned our requirement, saying that it was not supported by the Residential Code.  However, we pointed to Intent and Purpose as being the fundamental standard, and that our policy was consistent with the Intent statement.  Further more, the duties and powers of the Building Official states that the Building Official has the authority to render interpretations and adopt policies that are in compliance with the intent and purpose of the code.   Our policy is to provide a safe walkway from the primary entrance to the public way.  The driveway may be used as part of the Safe Walkway if it does not exceed a slope of 1 unit vertical to 12 units horizontal (8.3%) and does not have a cross slope greater than 1/4 inch per foot (2%).
> 
> So back to your question regarding my statement.  The intent of the building code is to provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety - including fire fighters and emergency responders.  And I would suggest that also includes building inspectors, mail carriers, delivery persons, etc...



I know you didn't ask for my opinion but I'm going to give it to you anyway  -  ^^ that's nonsense.  Because your BO (or you, if you're the top guy?) *believes* a "safe walkway" from the house to the road is somehow safer than doing without does not make it code.  You can modify your local zoning and/or planning ordinances to mandate it if you want and, while I'd still think it was dumb and recommend against it, at least it would be in the right place and done correctly.  Stretching the charging language of the code to set a policy to get it done is completely wrong.  Policies are bad, anyway - a policy for how much a copy costs or who makes the coffee or what time inspections start is fine (I guess), but policies that make rules are bad. The BO shouldn't be making rules - he should be reading the rules out of the book(s).  

** _If I misunderstood how you accomplished your requirement and it is codified within your ordinances then disregard all that, but your post doesn't read like that's how you did it._



I disagree with your last sentence, too.  Occupants and first responders is all you get out of 101.3 - inspectors, mailmen, and the Amazon driver don't make the cut.  See the Commentary:

❖ The intent of the code is to establish regulations providing for safety, health and general welfare of building occupants, as well as for fire fighters and emergency  responders during building emergencies. The intent becomes important in the application of such sections as Sections R102, R104.11 and R113, as well as any enforcement-oriented interpretive action or judgment. Like any code, the written text is subject to interpretation. Interpretations should not be affected by economics or the potential impact on any party. The only considerations should be occupants’ safety, protection of occupants’ health and welfare and emergency responder safety.


----------



## steveray (Jul 29, 2021)

Inspector Gift said:


> I do not agree with your comment.  Please look closer at IBC Section 1028.5.
> *1028.5 Access to a public way.*  The exit discharge shall provide a direct and unobstructed access to a public way.
> 
> *Exception:*  Where access to a public way cannot be provided, a safe dispersal area shall be provided where all of  the following are met:
> ...


What is not to agree with? There is an exception to providing access to a public way, which is what I said "not always"....If we take this to IRC land, my 6 person house needs a 30 sqft spot 50' from the building....I have a front yard for that


----------



## Sifu (Jul 29, 2021)

*"Reasonable"* level of safety.  Interesting that word wasn't used in the 2018 IRC section.  The use of reasonable is at times frustrating, because sometimes it is easier to live in the black and white, and at times helpful, when we are able to consider alternatives or unique conditions.  Gift has different conditions than I do, and it may be reasonable to administer their codes the way they do, but unreasonable for me. 

As for this particular topic, I stop at safety.  For me that is on my giant flat lawn, but for Gift, it may be down a slippery slope (pun intended).  I, for one, don't want every possible situation spelled out in the code....I want less code rather than more.  I adhere to the philosophy that the code was and should have remained a minimum criteria, and if an AHJ wants to add to it based on their own unique criteria then they should be able to.  That is fairly easy to do, and I believe comes with limited liability.  But if we go over-board for a "minimum" code, and in order to be "reasonable" we have to amend down or lessen the code in some way, then we open a whole 'nother can of worms.

*I think *the 2021 IRC is roughly 120 pages longer than the 2018, which was 50 pages longer than the 2015.  Where will it stop?  Get people to safety for what is "_conventional and common_", and let AHJ's add to it if needed.  

Anyway, great topic and video by Glenn as always.


----------



## tbz (Jul 29, 2021)

Inspector Gift said:


> City of Sandy development code standards allowed for very steep driveways at time that our policy for a safe walkway was created.  There are existing driveways that exceed 34% slope and are a challenge to ascend in dry weather, but are very unsafe and impossible to ascend during winter conditions.    The City has since revised the standards for driveways and now limit slope to 15%, and also tightened the requirement so that all driveways must be asphalt or concrete.  We do not allow a driveway to be used as part of the "Safe Walkway" if the slope exceeds 8.3% (1 inch per foot) -  which is the same for ADA ramps.
> 
> Please keep in mind that I work in a small city.  Any comments involving gravel driveways and long distances from to the public way are not applicable within City Limits.  There are always those who bring up exceptions that appear to run contrary to the code, but can still comply with the intent and purpose of the code. Which brings me to my initial point:  The Building Official is authorized to create interpretations and policies based upon the INTENT and PURPOSE of the code.


IG,

I get your points, but none of what you are pulling is supported by the actual code, as the ICC would and has published interps that jurisdiction ends at grade for the IRC.

If your local town wants to add zoning saying no gravel driveways or pavers allowed, only asphalt or concrete, and that the driveways need to meet ayz and all homes must a path to public way meeting stair and ramp geometry within the IRC for tread and riser configurations.  I could see that, but to say you interp the IRC to take you all the way to the public way, is an over step of power without the zoning charging the requirement.

The IRC is not just for little towns.

I get your point, using the IRC to enforce something that it was never in tended to do, to create a perfect world, that is not minimum code compliance.


----------



## steveray (Jul 30, 2021)

I think we are getting a little too critical of IG....As the IRC means nothing without AHJ/ local adoption, that AHJ can do whatever they want with it at adoption formally, or even through interpretation...Where I am glad I do not have to enforce IRC egress off the site, I don't care if the State of Oregon or a particular municipality thinks they need to, as long as they are within their legal jurisdiction to do so....


----------



## JCraver (Jul 30, 2021)

steveray said:


> I think we are getting a little too critical of IG....As the IRC means nothing without AHJ/ local adoption, that AHJ can do whatever they want with it at adoption formally, or even through interpretation...Where I am glad I do not have to enforce IRC egress off the site, I don't care if the State of Oregon or a particular municipality thinks they need to, as long as they are within their legal jurisdiction to do so....



I did that and I apologize - my post could come off harsher than I intended.  What I was trying to convey is that I disagree with the *way* they did it.  Policies are bad if they set code, and so are interpretations that stretch the language - that's what I was getting at.


----------



## JCraver (Jul 30, 2021)

Sifu said:


> *"Reasonable"* level of safety.  Interesting that word wasn't used in the 2018 IRC section.  The use of reasonable is at times frustrating, because sometimes it is easier to live in the black and white, and at times helpful, when we are able to consider alternatives or unique conditions.  Gift has different conditions than I do, and it may be reasonable to administer their codes the way they do, but unreasonable for me.
> 
> As for this particular topic, I stop at safety.  For me that is on my giant flat lawn, but for Gift, it may be down a slippery slope (pun intended).  I, for one, don't want every possible situation spelled out in the code....I want less code rather than more.  I adhere to the philosophy that the code was and should have remained a minimum criteria, and if an AHJ wants to add to it based on their own unique criteria then they should be able to.  That is fairly easy to do, and I believe comes with limited liability.  But if we go over-board for a "minimum" code, and in order to be "reasonable" we have to amend down or lessen the code in some way, then we open a whole 'nother can of worms.
> 
> ...



Great post.  I agree 1000%.


----------



## Inspector Gift (Jul 30, 2021)

JCraver said:


> I know you didn't ask for my opinion but I'm going to give it to you anyway  -  ^^ that's nonsense.  Because your BO (or you, if you're the top guy?) *believes* a "safe walkway" from the house to the road is somehow safer than doing without does not make it code.  You can modify your local zoning and/or planning ordinances to mandate it if you want and, while I'd still think it was dumb and recommend against it, at least it would be in the right place and done correctly.  Stretching the charging language of the code to set a policy to get it done is completely wrong.  Policies are bad, anyway - a policy for how much a copy costs or who makes the coffee or what time inspections start is fine (I guess), but policies that make rules are bad. The BO shouldn't be making rules - he should be reading the rules out of the book(s).
> 
> ** _If I misunderstood how you accomplished your requirement and it is codified within your ordinances then disregard all that, but your post doesn't read like that's how you did it._
> 
> ...


JCarver, I appreciate reading your opinion and the time you took to express it.  While we may not agree on every point regarding the application of the codes, we are in agreement that they are intended to make for a safer building environment.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 30, 2021)

A path to a public way> Most houses where I inspect are in gated communities so the roads are not public.

So 2021 is using the word "porch" for the first time. I there a definition in the IRC?


----------



## Glenn (Jul 30, 2021)

You guys are going to make me cry.  I love the respect for each other.  Keep that up while we talk out this stuff.  The people of the country are counting on us.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 30, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> A path to a public way> Most houses where I inspect are in gated communities so the roads are not public.
> 
> So 2021 is using the word "porch" for the first time. I there a definition in the IRC?


Porch is used in Table R602.7(3) for roofs and floors.  This table needs to be adjusted to work better with the new 507 deck provisions.

The issue of terms for these features is a big issue in consistent use of the IRC and is on my "to do" list for proposals.  However, it is not easy thing to address.  Many portions of the code reference these horizontal surfaces, from safety glazing, to cladding clearances, to this subject.  What's a patio?  A slab? a "similar horizontal surfaces"?  All of these terms are used as well.


----------



## tbz (Jul 31, 2021)

steveray said:


> I think we are getting a little too critical of IG....As the IRC means nothing without AHJ/ local adoption, that AHJ can do whatever they want with it at adoption formally, or even through interpretation...Where I am glad I do not have to enforce IRC egress off the site, I don't care if the State of Oregon or a particular municipality thinks they need to, as long as they are within their legal jurisdiction to do so....


Steveray,

I would not agree, I don't think anyone was getting critical of IG directly, though it might come out that way to non-frequent posters, those that post often on here I believe, or maybe I am just the oddity, see through the personalities, and focus on the direct content.  Everyone has their colorful way of expressing themselves, but always come around to the point.

My point, to be more direct is if local zoning adds it in, then go for it, however the IRC by itself as adopted statewide by OR, does not.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 1, 2021)

Glenn said:


> Porch is used in Table R602.7(3) for roofs and floors.  This table needs to be adjusted to work better with the new 507 deck provisions.
> 
> The issue of terms for these features is a big issue in consistent use of the IRC and is on my "to do" list for proposals.  However, it is not easy thing to address.  Many portions of the code reference these horizontal surfaces, from safety glazing, to cladding clearances, to this subject.  What's a patio?  A slab? a "similar horizontal surfaces"?  All of these terms are used as well.


Patio: enclosed, open to the sky, covered without walls, etc.?


----------



## steveray (Aug 2, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> Patio: enclosed, open to the sky, covered without walls, etc.?


So if I have a slab with a roof over it? Wassit called?


----------



## Glenn (Aug 3, 2021)

I could use the exact words of the IRC to prohibit a roof covering outside the required egress door.  Note it must "open to a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way".

Go see what the definition for yard and court say about "unobstructed to the sky"...

Problem.


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 5, 2021)

Another problem is when smoke alarms are required to comply to IRC in existing houses. IRC says they are not required when adding a porch or deck. But what if it is an enclosed porch? Would it be really an "addition" and not a porch?

If the porch walls and roof had over 40% glazing then it's a "Sunroom" per IRC definition. Would it still be considered a porch also and smokes in the existing house are not required to comply to IRC?


----------



## Glenn (Aug 5, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> Another problem is when smoke alarms are required to comply to IRC in existing houses. IRC says they are not required when adding a porch or deck. But what if it is an enclosed porch? Would it be really an "addition" and not a porch?
> 
> If the porch walls and roof had over 40% glazing then it's a "Sunroom" per IRC definition. Would it still be considered a porch also and smokes in the existing house are not required to comply to IRC?


Good stuff.  This reminded me of a story a builder told me.  A new deck was built and so an electrical receptacle was required to serve the deck.  This extended the service such that AFCI was required.  However, the old panelboard could not accommodate, so a service change was necessary.  The service change then triggered the smoke/CO alarm mandate, whereas the deck alone would not.


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 6, 2021)

Would not need a permit for electrical work in an existing house here, only the deck when over 30" high. Lots of work get's done here in houses without requiring smoke alarms because a permit is only required when structure work is done in a house per state code except where local amendments change it.


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 6, 2021)

Glenn said:


> I was involved with a 2021 IRC modification regarding which stairs and ramps must comply with IRC provisions. 311.7 excludes stairs to nonhabitable attics and crawlspaces. It also excludes stairs "not within or serving a building, deck, or patio". This is meant to address "hardscape" stairs in the landscaping.


I'm glad that this is being done. I always asked why wouldn't the stairway in your yard meet these definitions?

[RB] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure that is
accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and that
is located on the same lot.

[RB] STRUCTURE. That which is built or constructed.


----------



## tbz (Aug 6, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> I'm glad that this is being done. I always asked why wouldn't the stairway in your yard meet these definitions?
> 
> [RB] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure that is
> accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and that
> ...


Rick,

The issue I see with landscape stairs and calling them structures becomes were do you draw the line on larger properties or even smaller properties which are water front and have created natural pathways for access with natural stone steps formed or large lawns with level changes made in dirt cuts.

The primary hardscape-landscape stair that leads from lets say the driveway to the upper lawn walkway to the front door has merit, but 

now lets say you have a home that is just paver blocks set on ground level and you get to one end of this ground level patio were the grass rolls down, but the owner sets in 3 dirt levels about 30 inches wide and about 5 inches down (rise) each and 24" deep (tread), 20 inches of drop over 72 inches of travel, but the lawn roll out is 96" to get to the 20.

The house I grew up in had a raised concrete patio 5 risers up, compliant stairs down to concrete walkway through lawn, but then had dirt stairs cut in right off the walkway that were 20 inch treads with 6 inch risers, down 14 treads to a dirt path that connected to the trails in the woods behind us.

Definitely landscape, used cut down trees to form nosing/riser, and you stepped down right off the concrete walkway.  

Lets reverse it, gravel steps cut into the hill side leading down from the upper lawn to the driveway, no concrete or pavers or I guess structure.

I know today that most people go to the local box store or building/landscape supply and use box goods to build level changes in the lawns and property, but at what point does minimum code become non-minimal?


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 10, 2021)

steveray said:


> So if I have a slab with a roof over it? Wassit called?


Shade structure?


----------

