Deck railing requirements

[Greg Subick]

Did an inspection of a home where the front and rear decks were installed in 1980. As you can see from the photos, there are no vertical spindles installed anywhere, however, I can't find anywhere that states that they were required at time of manufacture/installation. A deck company installed it as homeowner showed me receipts, however, deck company long gone.

I looked in the TN Building Code book as well as the 2009 edition of the IRC and can't find anything (or don't know where to look).

Any help would be appreciated.

[Jim Robinson]

Don't worry about what was in effect when it was built. It's a waste of your time. If it's a safety problem now, write it up for your client.

[Lisa Endza]

I looked in the TN Building Code book as well as the 2009 edition of the IRC and can't find anything (or don't know where to look).

Any help would be appreciated.

R312.3

[Darren Miller]

Greg;

There are numerous problems in the 2nd photo.

Rails at steps not graspible.
Open risers.
Missing balusters.
Handrail does not extend to bottom step.
(possible) uneven risers.

Write them all down for safety reasons.

[Greg Subick]

Ladies and gentlemen,

thank you for your timely responses. I have followed your advise on this and called several things out. I must say to Jim, however, that I do not believe that it is ever a waste of someone's time to try and find out the correct information. Obviously, two of the contributers saw it important enough to locate the requirements, regardless of when the code was to be enforced.

Regards

[Jim Robinson]

My bad. I thought you knew where the current requirements were located, and were asking how to find out what was required in 1980. That was the part I was referring to as being a waste of time, not the current requirements.

[Ron Bibler]

R312.1 It only needs rails if it is over 30 inches of the ground. I .

I like to take it step further for information and additional safety and recommend hand railings on all steps. garage, front and rear any/all steps.

never had some one complain.

Best

Ron

[Bob Elliott]

Hope you mentioned the vegetation and checked the window for safety glass.
Cool shape on the structure though.

[Greg Subick]

I gotcha Jim, I was looking for the current information. Wouldn't even begin to know how to find what was correct in 1980....I was in my freshman year of college......which I don't remember much from either! :D

[Lisa Endza]

Here is a short brief on deck inspections that covers the basics Inspecting a Deck, Illustrated - InterNACHI (http://www.nachi.org/deck-inspections.htm)

[Greg Subick]

Lisa, thanks for this GREAT information! I appreciate the time you have taken to help me out on this.

Regards
greg

[Jerry Peck]

Openings in Guardrail

Please help with info about railing spacing on balconies.

1. Just for starters, for a 1982 building in Florida, what were the likely requirements for spindle spacing on balconies at that time? Six inches perhaps? And would that be expressed as distance-between-centers, minimum gap, or passage of a 6 inch diameter ball?

2. Is that requirement spelled out somewhere on the Internet? I can find reference to "6 inches" but no code statement.

3. The situation I am facing is that a few spindles are bent in my condo building, and I want them fixed for safety. The management hasn't been cooperative so far. What amount of excessive gap (relative to code) would be enough to prove that the spindles must be repaired?

4. If some spindles are defective, will the repair need to meet current 4 inch(?) code?

Thank you.

If you were to travel back in time to 1982, that would matter, however, today, what matters is that the 1982 spacing - if greater than 4" was allowed - has been recognized as not providing the necessary MINIMUM level of safety, and thus the LESS THAN ... yes, "less than" four inch space ... could lead to serious injury or death.

If your condo board does not understand that, have an attorney (hopefully you know an attorney who will do this, it may well benefit them at a future time when an accident happens) ... have an attorney write a letter stating that it has been brought to their attention by a client that the guard rail spacings are greater than the recognized minimum safety standard spacing of less than 4" and that the client is discussing seeking damages, but is more interested in the condo association correcting the condition to avoid more serious injuries, but it is up to the condo association board as to whether to accept this generous offer by making required repairs, or if the condo association board would prefer to receive a notice of intent to proceed with filing for recovery of damages and costs.

That out to get the condo board off their collective butts.

[Gunnar Alquist]

For the few afflicted balconies (mine and a couple of others), it won't be fear of a lawsuit that motivates the condo Board - they have insurance - but the hand of the authorities in the form of aggressive code enforcement.

Daryl,

Except... I believe that if the board has been warned about a specific condition that is unsafe, their inaction could result being directly sued for negligence. That would depend on precedent in FL.

[Jerry Peck]

Daryl,

Except... I believe that if the board has been warned about a specific condition that is unsafe, their inaction could result being directly sued for negligence. That would depend on precedent in FL.


Gunnar is correct, not only that, but with prior knowledge and their failure to take reasonable care to address the issue, the resultant judgment will be much greater than if they did not know of the problem ... even that is a risky stance to take as "they should have known" if they had been properly having the maintenance staff making routine inspections and repairs.

Couple that with increased insurance rates after a case like that is settled and they would be putting the association at undue risk, which may pierce their 'within the scope of their covered work' aspect and they may have to defend themselves personally on their own dime. :eek:

[Jerry Peck]

But note that we are talking about a colossal expenditure to replace railings on 300-odd balconies,

That is being done all the time all over Florida.

A less costly repair is to install additional balusters between existing balusters and simply reduce the spacing.

[Jerry Peck]

By the way, in 1991 the opening size was 6".

In 1982 it may have been 12" as that was allowed at some point in time, the spacing then went to 9", then to 6", then to the 4" - which is still the current standard.

You can probably tell the original spacing by the construction of the guard rails, and the paint, materials, etc.

Code enforcement should ONLY be addressing it as maintaining what as it was legally allowed to be, or was required to be at any upgrade point in time.

If your guard rail has 12" openings and there is no evidence that the guard rails were replaced or repaired, then that would "likely be" what was legally allowed "at the time of construction", and if "legally allowed at the time of construction" then that is allowed to remain until updating or repairs require meeting a newer standard.

Which means that if the guard rails have 12" openings and you "replace" the guard rails, then the guard rails will need to meet the current 4" opening standard.

Further, check with your city to see if they have adopted the ICC Property Maintenance Code, if not, see if they have adopted some other similar code, and if not see if your city as created its own similar code, and if not - then code enforcement as no right to enforce ANYTHING regarding property maintenance as code enforcement can ONLY enforce codes, they are not allowed to make things up as they desire.

[Jerry Peck]

By the way, check with the building department to see if they still have copies of the code from 1982 in their archives, if not it will be difficult for them to state what was required.

We all know that NO building "fully meets code", and we also know that when a Certificate of Occupancy is given that it represents that the codes have been met to the city's satisfaction (which is not saying that the codes have been met), and as such the guard rails are deemed to have met the code unless and until someone can prove otherwise, and then the city may have no choice but to accept the approved installation as "approved" and having 'met the code' simply because of the time which has passed.

That is completely different than what we all know regarding new construction ... NO building fully "meets code", but the buildings are "approved" anyway.

Now, code enforcement may very well require the guard rails BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED, but that has nothing to do with the spaces between the balusters, that has to do with not 'falling into disrepair' and becoming 'unsafe' from that structural standpoint.

Anyway, I think you get where I have been going in the last few posts.

[brian schmitt]

greg,
the uniform building code for 1982 had a 12"spacing for the balusters!

[Jerry Peck]

A 12in gap between spindles on a high-rise balcony . . . hmm. So maybe I should be grateful if my bent ones that now have a gap in places of, say, 7 inches are so closely-spaced!


For *your* balcony simply buy some orange safety fence and tie it to your guard rail.

When the condo board tells you that you have to remove it, tell them that you will remove it when *they* make *their* railing on your balcony safe.

Or, if you just want to make it safer without making a point, simply buy some child barrier fence for a swimming pool and tie that up to the guard rail. No one will likely see it and no child will go through it. Over it - maybe, but not through it.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Since the balcony is presumably (IIRC you made mention of over 300 of them) a private area accessible only from your condo unit and an area for your sole and exclusive use (even if a shared one with another set of units), it would be a LIMITED common element. Thus the association will likely charge back any expense to maintain, repair, or upgrade your balcony guard rails to your unit (or if a shared element with your neighbor- your pro-rata share).

You also, I believe, mentioned or implied a high-rise building. Having been put on "notice" by you, your association may end up making rules such as prohibiting use or storage on said balconies, chairs, etc. as they may be prone to blow off in far less than hurricane winds. In the meantime you might also want to check with your personal condo insurance agent regarding your own liability for items on your balcony (blowing off and hitting someone, something, etc.) and anything you're thinking about attaching to the existing guards.

You might inquire as to what, if any, installation of interior to your balcony guards might be permitted (at your own expense). Untinted Safety glass type guard systems are allowed by some associations to be installed interior to their uniformly architecture controlled exterior viewed guards. However, I don't recall any such systems for uber-high rises, and at 150 ft Seems you're well above the 10th floor limit for most in hurricane wind zones.

Most associations have expressed rules regarding attachments, decorations, etc. on balconies (FL), especially multi-level buildings. Best to consult rules and approach board in writing for approval if you wish to modify or enhance. Generally, if permitted, you'd be responsible for removal and restoration expense when/if you later sold.

Responsibility and common sense regarding child-proofing ones window openings, (screens do not prevent children from falling to their deaths), and balcony and attending one's children or those in your care, are required of the homeowner/occupant, not the condominium assocaition.

If you're concerned that a six or seven inch sphere opening is too dangerous for young children, draping orange construction webbing and tieing to the inside of the existing guards is about the stupidiest thing I've heard. It will do nothing to protect, may well end up as an entrapment/strangle hazard (think roman shades recalls of late) and for the younger ones end up serving as a rope-LADDER for them to easily scale and flop over the top of the guard and fall to their deaths. It would in no way serve to child-proof or remediate the situation, in fact would likely make it LESS safe than it presently is.

Balcony guards are meant to guard from accidental fall off or over the edge, such as should one slip, misjudge the distance, turn, misstep, or be blinded by smoke and/or fire, so to not run into and flop over the edge. They were and are not prevent any possibility of forcing through or intentionally getting over the top. The old standards also provided for a lower minimum height too.

[Jerry Peck]

If you're concerned that a six or seven inch sphere opening is too dangerous for young children, draping orange construction webbing and tieing to the inside of the existing guards is about the stupidiest thing I've heard. It will do nothing to protect, may well end up as an entrapment/strangle hazard (think roman shades recalls of late) and for the younger ones end up serving as a rope-LADDER for them to easily scale and flop over the top of the guard and fall to their deaths. It would in no way serve to child-proof or remediate the situation, in fact would likely make it LESS safe than it presently is.


Thinking that something which makes the openings smaller is the stupidest thing you've heard of is, well, the stupidest thing.

The orange fencing I have seen will definitely keep smaller children out, and they WILL get over the guard if they want to - notice that I did state:

... no child will go through it. Over it - maybe, but not through it.

That applies equally to ANY type of material attached to the inside of the guard rail ... EVEN your safety glass.

Do you think that children are so dumb as to not recognize chairs as easily movable ladders to climb and get over things? Now THAT would be the stupidest thing I have heard from you (okay, maybe not, maybe you've said stupider things ... yeah, you probably have said stupider things now that I stop and think about it :rolleyes: ).

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Daryl May,

Looks like Tampa City Code, Property Maintenance today - would be a six inch sphere rule. Check with Code Enforcement Department for verification to your specific circumstance.

Using construction web fencing as Jerry Peck proposed would likely result in a violation notice from the Condo Association or its managing agent, AND

A Code violation notice from the Code Enforcement Department from the City of Tampa.

Tampa has strict rules on appearances, etc. And don't think for one moment that not one of the other 299 residents, passers-by, other neighboring visitors, tenants, occupants, employees of nearby locations won't be calling or anomously e-portal complaining about the ORANGE webbing.

Tampa Municipal (City) Code is viewable on-line. Here is a direct (clickable) link:
Municode - Search (http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10132&stateId=9&stateName=Florida)

Use the navigation at the left to expand and load the Chapter (19), Article (III) and Division (2) referenced below.

Property Maintenance is in Chapter 19 of the Code.
Artlcle III (Technical Provisions) of Chapter 19
Divison 2 (Specific Technical Requirements) of Article III

Sec. 19-231. - Standards for dwellings generally

Scroll down to Number 12...it reads thusly:

(12) Stairs, porches and appurtenances. Every inside and outside stair, every porch and every appurtenance thereto shall be so constructed as to meet the requirements of the building code and shall be kept in a good state of repair. No stair riser shall exceed eight (8) inches and no stair tread shall be less than nine (9) inches. Protective railings or handrails shall be required on any unenclosed structure over three (3) feet from the ground level and on every interior or exterior stair and stairwell more than four (4) risers high and shall be located in accordance with the requirements of the building code. Handrails or protective railings shall be capable of bearing normal imposed loads and shall be maintained in good condition. No ladders shall be permitted, except spiral staircases.


a. Guardrails generally. All unenclosed floor and roof openings, open and glazed sides of landings and ramps, balconies or porches which are more than thirty (30) inches (762 mm) above finished ground level or a floor below shall be protected by a guardrail. Guardrails shall form a vertical protective barrier not less than forty-two (42) inches (1067 mm) high. Open guardrails shall have intermediate rails or ornamental pattern such that a six-inch (152 mm) diameter sphere cannot pass through any opening. A bottom rail or curb shall be provided that will reject the passage of a two-inch (52 mm) diameter sphere. Construction of guardrails shall be adequate in strength, durability and attachment for their purpose as described in Chapter 5.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Guardrails are not required on the loading side of loading docks.

b. Guardrails for residential dwellings.

1. Guardrails for dwellings and within individual dwelling units or guest rooms shall be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches (914 mm) high.

2. For one and two-family dwellings, only one intermediate rail located between fourteen (14) and eighteen (18) inches (356 mm and 457 mm) above four level shall be required between the top of the guardrail and the floor level of boat docks, piers, landings, decks on beach fronts and dune walkovers, providing the floor or deck level is not more than six (6) feet (1826 mm) above the mean high water level or average grade of the beach, dune or ground below. No guardrail shall be required on that portion of a boat dock used for docking a boat.

3. A bottom rail or curb is not required on guardrails within dwellings or dwelling units.

You'll find much more info as you read on through all the sections (such as paint, building surfaces, hanging or loose, etc.).

Chapter 5 is the Building Code(s) references.


Of course a quick email or call to the City may further "pin down" just what IS and IS not required. Remember, if its strictly a balcony for YOUR unit - you may well be assessed the full cost of repair, upgrade, modification, etc. as it would be a LIMITED common element. Changes/Modifications/Repairs - See Chapter 5 First Section.

HTH.

[Steve Szypulski]

Section 1113.8 of the Standard Building Code 1982 Edition states "Guardrails shall be not less than forty-two (42) inches in height. Open guardrails shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere six (6) inches in diameter cannot pass through."

Be careful what you decide to do. In Florida, the condo board/management company may decide orange debris fencing is the least expensive remedy and quite attractive.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Doubful, esp. since D.M. has indicated an approximate 150 ft. elevation and the unit being occupied.It would be an entrapment, snag and enstranglement hazard and couldn't withstand intermediate wind gusts, exposure to UV, etc. for those zip ties, retention support bars, staples, etc. at that elevation for any sustained period of time, not to mention the blow-off potential problems in any significant lengths. Would likely also require lockout of the balcony access. It is a temporary use material and at 150 ft elevation is likely Beyond the 10-floor rule. "Wind patterns" (sheer, etc.) and such stresses at higher elevations are often quite different than those nearer to ground level, especially the effects against a highrise structure.Not to mention the Condo Building Master policy and the individual occupancy insurance carriers/underwriters likely having a FIT about it. Construction Insurance hazard policies much more expensive. Limited in duration, and notification of regular carriers binding "temporary" exposure to such hazards (with opportunity to require additional premimums esp. if a Contractor with sufficient coverage is not "overlaying" during operations (generally providing a certificate with Condo Association or such entity as Named Insured during the project requiring such) would be S.O.P.Protecting areas with construction hazards from "blow off" at high rise buildings have a multitude of safety standards and requirements. Errecting a covered safety zone for pedestrians, etc. or closing off to all traffic is also "part" of S.O.P. procedure.Wind fencing has a limited use and purpose. Creative use of materials outside of that range, and without proper precautions, can further subject the user/installer/owner/etc. to further liability.D.I.Y.'ing Orange Construction Debris web fencing to the guardrail of a high-rise Condo Balcony and expecting to perform as a "child proofing remedy" for use of the Balcony for 6" sphere spacing of balcony guard is a very BAD idea for the "issues" presented by subsequent poster Daryl May for many important reasons. Even using something as U-Bolts to connect to existing guard, the webing subject to deterioration, and tearing with the environment of a balcony of highrise 150 Ft+ above ground in Tampa, FL.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Thank you kindly for a very comprehensive answer. I think I'm now informed as to the legal requirements here - the railing spacing must be maintained to not permit a 6 in diameter ball.

I really appreciate the help.

You're welcome.

[Larry Sparks]

In Missouri and I assume nationally, if the loan is FHA or other type of Govt. loan, a handrail is required if the deck is over 30 inches off the ground. Spindles are required and the post or spindles can have no more than 4 inches between spindles or post to prevent children from getting through. I have had FHA refuse to loan money to the client if these standards are not met. If less than 30 inches they don't seem to care. A child can be hurt if the deck is 6 inches off the ground. I always write it up as a safety issue just to make sure you disclaim the concern. Remember disclaim! disclaim! disclaim! to protect yourself.

[Steve Szypulski]

Mr. Watson-

The citation of the applicable code section was in response to the question, as I have been doing this long enough to have the older codes in my library.

The comment was purely tongue-in-cheek. Forgive me for injecting obvious mild humor into the thread.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Section 1113.8 of the Standard Building Code 1982 Edition states "Guardrails shall be not less than forty-two (42) inches in height. Open guardrails shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere six (6) inches in diameter cannot pass through."

Be careful what you decide to do. In Florida, the condo board/management company may decide orange debris fencing is the least expensive remedy and quite attractive.


Mr. Watson-

The comment was purely tongue-in-cheek. Forgive me for injecting obvious mild humor into the thread.

Mr. Szypulski-

Please excuse me. Sorry, this reader "without a clue" :D , didn't find your sarcasm "obvious" nor obviously "humorous".

Plain reading, plain remark, I responded with some reasons why I doubted a Hi-rise Condominimum Association Board/Management might make such a decision. :o

Sometimes punctuation, smileys/emoticons, highlighting, off-setting, etc. helps "clue" the reader. ;)

[Jerry Peck]

b. Guardrails for residential dwellings.

1. Guardrails for dwellings and within individual dwelling units or guest rooms shall be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches (914 mm) high.


That does not apply to the balcony guardrail.

The balcony guardrail is required to be 42 inches high.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

That does not apply to the balcony guardrail.

The balcony guardrail is required to be 42 inches high.


Jerry, of course not Daryl May's balcony guard. I quoted the entire section (12) for Daryl May's benefit. I have no way of knowing if has a bi-level condo!

I underlined the sections in part A pertaining to the BALCONY guard spacing, which was on point to Daryl May's question. The 42" height requirement was provided (up in part A) with the entirety of section 12.

Sheesh, for an interior to the DWELLING UNIT guardrail IN a condo, it would/does.

[Jerry Peck]

Sheesh, for an interior to the DWELLING UNIT guardrail IN a condo, it would/does.

That part would be correct, yes.

The balcony being referred to, however, was an exterior balcony. Which is why I posted the clarification on height.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

That part would be correct, yes.

The balcony being referred to, however, was an exterior balcony. Which is why I posted the clarification on height.

Okaaaay...

Well, in that regard perhaps it should be re-posted and/or re-clarified that Dayrl May's exterior 150 ft. elevation balcony guard also requires maintainance of a curb or bottom rail that prohibits the passage of a 2-inch sphere.

Perhaps posting the entirety of Number 12 of Section 19-231 should be posted? oh wait, I did that already! :D Should I have posted all of Chapter 5 so as to "clarify" the additional maintenance, installation and strength requirements? How about the sections on paint, corrosion, appearance? Should I have posted every little thing that is special and unique to buildings equal to or greater than 10 stories? "Naw" I don't think so.

Posted links to the actual City Code so it could be verified and read at D.M.'s leisure. I further suggested direct inquiry to Code Enforement for any questions and/or official intreptations, which is (of course only) my opinion, of the most appropriate source of information (with further cavaets to liability master, building, and personal condo liability insurance underwriting) and personal responsibility.

What Daryl May specified wanted was:


What I was hoping for was for someone to inform me that the code was, say, for a 6" ball to not go through, and for that to have to be maintained after construction.

Thats what was specified and delivered, everything else was gravy, and addressing earlier and following "fundementally flawed" comments of others!

That's my last "word" on the subject of the Daryl May balcony topic thread direction/discussion.:rolleyes:

[Joao Vieira]

yep, things get out of hand quite quickly around here.
Our host has to keep a tight leech.
I am wrong all the time and I am ok with it, for the record.

There is one more soup ingredient that that I wanted to point out:
The construction drawings (if available) sometimes have the info that we all look for. Also sometimes the details and information on the construction drawings are scarse, confusing and not helpfull.

Just because a house was built in 2007 does not mean that the relevant code is from 2007. Once in a while I find that the architect or structural Eng. has on the notes that not-current IBC or similar was used for a particular project. Sometimes they just copy and paste and forget to change the dates too. Can become very messy.

As an inspector I will write everything that looks to me to be a health or life safety. I can assure you that the answers for some of the discrepancies are not in a code book. I am the first one to admit that I also make mistakes.

[Michael Thomas]

Just ran across this IMO useful article on meeting current post attachment requirements:

Deckbuilder Online: Code-Compliant Guardrail Posts (http://www.deckmagazine.com/article/377.html?cid=PRD110614002)

[Jim Robinson]

I used those fasteners on an upper level deck at my house, and they worked great. On posts inside the rim board it can be done just as easily with blocking, but it's a nice product for posts on the outside of the rim board. Pretty easy to install, also.