# Handrails & Non-conforming landscape staircase



## tbz

Ok,

Client requested handrails for his landscape stairs.

The stairs are in the yard and lead from the driveway to the rear of the house are within the fencing of the pool enclosure.

There is another exit on the other side of the yard that leads right from the yard in to the front yard all grass.

This landscape set of stairs are pre-existing there before the client added the pool in the back yard.

All we did was add the handrails.

Inspector is stating tread and riser are non-compliant and that guards are needed.  Well for a fact the guards are not required.

But, imn my interp the stairs are not within the scope of work and are not part of the house nor are they any part of the IRC-2009 NJ.

How do you all see this, ask questions if I did not cover anything.

Thanks Tom


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept

Normally I would say those aren't stairs, but we all know where that will get the thread.  Landscaping is not considered within the scope of the IRC in this AHJ.  We don't even require handrails.  Retaining walls on commercial properties are required to provide guards per our zoning regulations, but they are not regulated to the specification of the IRC or IBC.  Attached accessory structures (e.g., decks) which are more than 30 inches above the adjacent grade line are required to provide guards in accordance with the IRC, and when stairs are provided, 4 or more risers require guards, hand rails and compliant rise and run.


----------



## pwood

if not a part of the exiting system it doesn't need to comply with squat! it is a landscape feature, veritable art work.


----------



## KZQuixote

Nice Railings Tom.

How could the inspector complain about your making an existing set of steps safer?

Bill


----------



## mtlogcabin

You had to get a permit and inspection for the handrail installation?

We have 1,000's of examples like this and no handrails installed.

As long as the steps do not provide access or egress from a residence or accessory structure then I believe they are not regulated by the code.

Providing the handrails are 1,000% better than no handrails. I bet that rock is real slippery when wet or frosty.


----------



## fatboy

Tell 'em to pound sand, not part of the IRC structure. Just happened to be a pile of rocks
that someone wanted a handrail to help climb on.


----------



## north star

*+ - + -*

tbz,

Agree with the other esteemed Forum contributors & members,
no permit required for the decorative iron railing, "unless",
...the AHJ has adopted something in their own ordinances.

FWIW, in the pic.,  ...those steps look like a fall hazard
waiting to happen.

*- + - +*


----------



## twistr2002

If the AHJ is being that much of a p.i.a., call him/her out. Ask them to show it to you in black and white.  We all know the hot spot that will put them in.


----------



## Sifu

2006 IRC Q&A book states that the moe ends where the occupant walks out the front door, down the steps and onto the landing at grade level.  If your steps don't fit in that then they don't have a step to stand on.


----------



## tbz

Thanks everyone,

We did not get a permit for these handrails because we don't consider them part of the AHJ scope of work.

The stairs also failed for treads and riser dimensions, not even close if they were required to meet a code requirement.

we got the call from the home owner that they failed inspection for no balusters per R312, but that doen't make any sense.

I beleive the CLIENT just installed a new pool in the back yard, so when the inspector came to do their part on the pool up above they walked up from the driveway down below via this set of steps.

They could have walked up in front of the house and around to the other sides gate and never encountered these steps.

I don't believe the inspector was trying to do anything more than their job, but missed interped his or hers scope of authority in that landscaping is not regrulated.

I beleive once confronted they will verify and remember and provide the CO for the acctual work done regrulated by the building department.

I just wanted to make sure I was not loosing it and missed something.

See you all at the hearings in Dallas

Thanks again

Tom Z


----------



## pwood

tbz,

   print a copy of this thread for the ahj!


----------



## righter101

Ask them for the specific code section.  Likely they will cite "R311" or "R312".  These are titled "means of egress".  Ask him for a copy of the definition of means of egress.

These clearly don't apply to the landscaping portion of a dwelling.

Here is another analogy I use, regading "guards" when required above elevated walking surfaces greater than 30" above grade.  I have a 400 foot driveway from my house to the road.  At one point, there is a huge culvert to allow a flow of water, basically a creek.  It is more than 30 inches from the driveway to the bottom of grade at that point.

I walk from my house to the mailbox on a daily basis.

Would he make me put a guard rail in this location?

Very simliar.

Good luck.


----------



## ICE

Did the inspector also inspect the steps into the pool?


----------



## High Desert

Tom, where's the accessible ramp around those stairs? Or did they provide an elevator?


----------



## KZQuixote

Dude!?! How could he have missed the lacking:






Note to pool owners: This lift is removable and is therefore noncompliant.

Bill


----------



## brudgers

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Nice Railings Tom.  How could the inspector complain about your making an existing set of steps safer?  Bill


  There are not enough bytes on the internet to answer that one fully.


----------



## David Henderson

Pull your tape out and ask the inspector to show you where it is more than 30" to grade.


----------



## NH09

I agree, these stairs are clearly a landscape element and not regulated by the code. In regards to balusters being required I would refer back to section R312.3 Opening limitations - _required guards_ shall not have openings.....These guards are not _required_ therfore do not have to comply with that section of the code.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Agree with the interpretations; the stairs are beyond the scope of the 2009 IRC (included in the NJ edition) according to the new definition:

*STAIRWAY.* One or more flights of stairs, either interior or exterior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another within or attached to a building, porch or deck.

Might do yourself and this inspector a favor to point him toward this forum.

Francis


----------



## Big Mac

Not regulated by the IRC


----------



## Syz

Does anyone know how this ended up? We are seeing a very similar issue in PA. We are under the 2009 IRC version. They are citing 311.7.4.1 and 311.7.4.2 and 312.1 .. Did the above get successfully resolved? If so, how? Thanks!!


----------



## ADAguy

Wow! What a thread.
1. This is a residential property, ADA does not apply.
2. Is there a safety fence between the pool and house?
3. Best practice: provide normal dimensions for rise and run of steps/stair
4. Best Practice: provide handrails
5. Consider risk management of trip and fall potential, The sharks are out there and waiting.
6. Contractors/Designers be sure and keep your E & O in force.


----------



## ADAguy

tbz said:


> Ok,
> 
> Client requested handrails for his landscape stairs.
> 
> The stairs are in the yard and lead from the driveway to the rear of the house are within the fencing of the pool enclosure.
> 
> There is another exit on the other side of the yard that leads right from the yard in to the front yard all grass.
> 
> This landscape set of stairs are pre-existing there before the client added the pool in the back yard.
> 
> All we did was add the handrails.
> 
> Inspector is stating tread and riser are non-compliant and that guards are needed.  Well for a fact the guards are not required.
> 
> But, imn my interp the stairs are not within the scope of work and are not part of the house nor are they any part of the IRC-2009 NJ.
> 
> How do you all see this, ask questions if I did not cover anything.
> 
> Thanks Tom


----------



## ADAguy

What if this stair was on a commercial site connecting the public sidewalk to the main courtyard on which a building sits? The courtyard has one accessible POT to the public sidewalk. If you do T.I. work in the building would a second accessible POT now be required in CA. ?


----------



## steveray

Syz said:


> Does anyone know how this ended up? We are seeing a very similar issue in PA. We are under the 2009 IRC version. They are citing 311.7.4.1 and 311.7.4.2 and 312.1 .. Did the above get successfully resolved? If so, how? Thanks!!



R311.1 Means of egress. All dwellings shall be provided
with a means of egress as provided in 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 exterior of the dwelling at the required egress
door without requiring travel through a garage.

Neither the pool or the yard are a "dwelling" no MOE required....


----------



## PJC89

Agreed with those above - if the stair is not used as a means of egress from the home it is not required to be provided with handrails.  That all being said, there is nothing in the code that states when a stair is voluntarily provided X, Y and Z apply.  Therefore, in most instances, a handrail is provided regardless as the stair is designed to meet the means of egress provisions.  Once provided it should technically comply with the handrail requirements outlined in the residential code which includes guards, height, etc.  Refer to Section 311.7.8 for additional information:

https://up.codes/viewer/general/int_residential_code_2015/chapter/3/building-planning#R311

You certainly have an argument to not comply but it is a bit of a grey area.  I would state its more of an art feature than anything else.


----------



## ADAguy

It ultimately comes down to a risk management issue.
If a trip and fall occurs to what what defensable standard will they be held, or not?


----------



## Robert

Where does the means of egress end? Once you are out the door or once you hit a public way? I see many new accessory dwelling units built in the rear yards of the main residence, and getting people to the street usually takes them on landscape stairs like what the OP posted...non compliant with rise/run and landings. The last two I worked, one AHJ made the whole path all the way to the front yard be demolished and brought to current standards. The other AHJ allowed the egress POT to end once they were out the door.


----------



## JCraver

Robert said:


> Where does the means of egress end? Once you are out the door or once you hit a public way? I see many new accessory dwelling units built in the rear yards of the main residence, and getting people to the street usually takes them on landscape stairs like what the OP posted...non compliant with rise/run and landings. The last two I worked, *one AHJ made the whole path all the way to the front yard be demolished and brought to current standards.* The other AHJ allowed the egress POT to end once they were out the door.




Yet another example of why people don't like us - Idiot bosses that make CEO's do $#it like this.


----------



## ADAguy

Robert, good point  but if the rear unit is a granny flat or an apartment, consideration should be given to its accessibility.


----------



## my250r11

The Alley is also a public way if it has one. MOE & POT to the alley would comply also.


----------



## JBI

'Guard', which includes balusters, NOT required IMO. There is no where to fall to the side, no change in elevation greater than 30". Only 'required' guards have opening limitations, so the balusters are a non-issue.
Where I disagree is that the handrail itself must comply for height, graspability and live load. If it looks like a duck it needs to quack like a duck. People will grab it and apply load to it, it needs to withstand the Code specified minimum load.
The IRC applies to dwellings _and their accessory structures_; the pool, steps, etc are accessory to the dwelling.


----------



## ADAguy

Didn't you mean to say "agree"? "Quack"!


----------



## JBI

ADAguy said:


> Didn't you mean to say "agree"? "Quack"!



Early replies were suggesting it is not required to comply with anything as it is 'outside the scope' of the IRC.


----------



## ADAguy

It comes down to a best practices to prevent trip and fall claims.
If this property is used as an AirB&B what would the homeowners liability then be?
Would it, could it be then seen as a commercial use? If so, subject to commercial building code requirements?


----------



## fatboy

I would respectively disagree that they are regulated. Yes the accessory structures would be covered, but the access to them, landscaping, does not in my opinion.

If that was a slope of grass, and the requested handrail were added to assist in the traversing the grass, would you invoke ramp requirements? 

Take away the handrails, and one could describe the OP at a series of terraces.

Again..... JMHO


----------



## JBI

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

[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.

The steps were 'built or constructed', as was the handrail. Opinions will vary.


----------



## JCraver

Seems like this question has come up before, and we always have the same arguments/results.  Anybody know if ICC has ever issued an interpretation?  I'd check myself, but their website makes me want to punch things and I try not to go there....


----------



## tmurray

Robert said:


> Where does the means of egress end? Once you are out the door or once you hit a public way? I see many new accessory dwelling units built in the rear yards of the main residence, and getting people to the street usually takes them on landscape stairs like what the OP posted...non compliant with rise/run and landings. The last two I worked, one AHJ made the whole path all the way to the front yard be demolished and brought to current standards. The other AHJ allowed the egress POT to end once they were out the door.



In our code the POT ends a the landing outside for single family dwelling regardless of how many are on the property. Based on the responses here, I would expect the same from the IRC


----------



## JBI

tmurray said:


> In our code the POT ends a the landing outside for single family dwelling regardless of how many are on the property. Based on the responses here, I would expect the same from the IRC



2015 IRC Second printing (text is *not* 'new' to 2015)
*R311.3.1 Floor elevations at the required egress doors*. Landings or finished floors at the required egress door shall be not more than 1 1/2 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. (emphasis added)*


----------



## ADAguy

Given no doors on structure and unless considered to be a landing, the provision of stairs or a ramp to the structure would be for convenience.
If provided they must then comply with code minimums.

That being the case, what if the residence is then rented as an AirB&B, would it not then be subject to 11B access requirements as a commercial use?


----------



## JCraver

ADAguy said:


> Given no doors on structure and unless considered to be a landing, the provision of stairs or a ramp to the structure would be for convenience.
> If provided they must then comply with code minimums.
> 
> *That being the case, what if the residence is then rented as an AirB&B, would it not then be subject to 11B access requirements as a commercial use*?



IMO, that would be jurisdiction-dependent, depending on what their Zoning Code said about commercial vs. residential.  It's the only argument that I'd give credit to (and then, only a little) that a single family residence could be construed as a commercial establishment.

And I still disagree with your assertion that "if provided, must comply".  Comes down to the definition of "structure" or "accessory structure", neither of which I believe you'd get by any judge I've ever met for a set of landscape stairs.  Fatboy's slope of grass analogy on the previous page was absolutely correct.


----------



## fatboy

Agreed...for the required egress door.


----------

