Step off and Away-you-go!

[Rich Goeken]

This is a new home in a 55+ community. The grade between the homes is designed to drain from the street in the front of the house, out the back to part of a lake. The distance from the house to the center of the drainage grade is 6'-0" and the drop from the top of the step is 1'-8".

Unless you are nimble like a goat and can go down to the center of the grade, or able to walk through the mulch and planting, it is difficult for an elderly person to get to the back yard.

My questions are, what guidelines or codes are applicable to this, and what violations, if any, exist?

[Jim Luttrall]

This is a new home in a 55+ community. The grade between the homes is designed to drain from the street in the front of the house, out the back to part of a lake. The distance from the house to the center of the drainage grade is 6'-0" and the drop from the top of the step is 1'-8".

Unless you are nimble like a goat and can go down to the center of the grade, or able to walk through the mulch and planting, it is difficult for an elderly person to get to the back yard.

My questions are, what guidelines or codes are applicable to this, and what violations, if any, exist?
I don't know of a problem as long as there is sod, etc. to prevent soil erosion. This looks like about every 10th house here. I look for movement of the soil since we have highly plastic (fluid) soils when saturated. Might not be easy access but I don't know of any code violation unless maybe ADA rules kick in and that is the ONLY access.
I see more of a problem with the downhill house getting runoff from the inadequate slope to keep water in the drainage swale.

[Jerry Peck]

My questions are, what guidelines or codes are applicable to this, and what violations, if any, exist?

According to the code, which is a minimum standard, that drop of 20" is code compliant.

Additionally, the code requires a minimum drainage slope away from the foundation of 6" in 10', that slope is greater and is code compliant.

However, the code requires a landing at the bottom of that one-step stair, and the minimum size of the landing is required to be the width of the door (looks like it makes that) by the width of the door in depth measured out from the step (looks like it does not make that), and the landing is required to be level - level means a maximum slope of 1/4" per foot (looks like it does not make that either).

[Rich Goeken]

According to the code, which is a minimum standard, that drop of 20" is code compliant.

Additionally, the code requires a minimum drainage slope away from the foundation of 6" in 10', that slope is greater and is code compliant.

However, the code requires a landing at the bottom of that one-step stair, and the minimum size of the landing is required to be the width of the door (looks like it makes that) by the width of the door in depth measured out from the step (looks like it does not make that), and the landing is required to be level - level means a maximum slope of 1/4" per foot (looks like it does not make that either).


Thanks Jerry, could you please share that reference with me.

[Rick Cantrell]

However, the code requires a landing at the bottom of that one-step stair,
Well??

From the 2006 IRC (Georgia is still using this)
R311.4.3 Landings at doors. There shall be a floor or landing
on each side of each exterior door. The floor or landing
at the exterior door shall not be more than 1.5 inches (38
mm) lower than the top of the threshold. The landing shall
be permitted to have a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical
in 12 units horizontal (2-percent).
Exceptions:
1. Where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located
on the exterior side of a door, other than the
required exit door, a landing is not required for the
exterior side of the door provided the door, other
than an exterior storm or screen door does not
swing over the stairway.

[Jerry Peck]

Thanks Jerry, could you please share that reference with me.

Yes, when I get back to my office in a couple of hours.

It is in the FBC-Residential online but I can't access that while at this project either.

[Jerry Peck]

Thanks Jerry, could you please share that reference with me.

From the 2010 FBC-Residential

- R311.3 Landings at doors. - - There shall be a floor or landing on each side of each exterior door. (Jerry's note: A "landing" on the outside can be dirt, sod, weeds (sort of :) ), mulch, gravel, etc.)
- - - Exception: Where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located on the exterior side of a door, a landing is not required for the exterior side of the door. (Jerry's note: This means that a landing is not required at that door in the photo because there is only one riser and and it is at an exterior door.)
- - The floor or landing at exterior doors required by Section R311.2 shall not be required to comply with this requirement but shall have a rise no greater than that permitted in Section R311.7.4. (Jerry's note: This section refers to a floor or landing at the required egress door.)
- - The width of each landing shall not be less than the door served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.(Jerry's note: The landing is only required to be a depth of 36" regardless of the width of the door, the width of the landing is required to be the width of the door - in the case of sliding glass doors or similar where both doors are movable the width of the door is the entire width of both sliding doors.)

- - R311.3.1 Floor elevations at the required egress doors. (Jerry's note: This section is only for the required egress door and would is not applicable to the door in the photo.)
- - - Landings or floors at the required egress door shall not be more than 1 1/2 inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold.
- - - - Exception: The exterior landing or floor shall not be more than 7 3/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold provided the door does not swing over the landing or floor.
When 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.


- - R311.3.2 Floor elevations for other exterior doors. (Jerry's note: This is applicable to the door in the photo.)
- - - Doors other than the required egress door shall be provided with landings or floors not more than 7 3/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold.
- - - - Exception: A landing is not required where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located on the exterior side of the door, provided the door does not swing over the stairway. (Jerry's note: The riser is allowed to be a maximum of 7-3/4" high below the top of the threshold, there are fewer than two riser so no landing is required on the exterior side of that door, and the door which swings out over the stair is a screen door which is exempt and is allowed to swing out over the stair.)


- - R311.3.3 Storm and screen doors.
- - - Storm and screen doors shall be permitted to swing over all exterior stairs and landings. (Jerry's note: Screen and storm doors are permitted to swing out over exterior stairs.)


I had forgotten the part about no landing being required outside an exterior door with only one or two risers.

Seems as though that puts it back on the less than 30" drop for 3' out from the door - no landing is required at that screen door in the photo - that is the way I am reading it.

[Rich Goeken]

From the 2010 FBC-Residential

........- - R311.3.2 Floor elevations for other exterior doors. (Jerry's note: This is applicable to the door in the photo.)
- - - Doors other than the required egress door shall be provided with landings or floors not more than 7 3/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold.
- - - - Exception: A landing is not required where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located on the exterior side of the door, provided the door does not swing over the stairway. (Jerry's note: The riser is allowed to be a maximum of 7-3/4" high below the top of the threshold, there are fewer than two riser so no landing is required on the exterior side of that door, and the door which swings out over the stair is a screen door which is exempt and is allowed to swing out over the stair.)


- - R311.3.3 Storm and screen doors.
- - - Storm and screen doors shall be permitted to swing over all exterior stairs and landings. (Jerry's note: Screen and storm doors are permitted to swing out over exterior stairs.)


I had forgotten the part about no landing being required outside an exterior door with only one or two risers.

Seems as though that puts it back on the less than 30" drop for 3' out from the door - no landing is required at that screen door in the photo - that is the way I am reading it.

So it looks like I am back where I started. An elderly person can go out that door, step off the landing, mistep because of the slope below the landing (not a flat surface), and land in a heap at the bottom... (as I read it.) :(

Thanks, Jerry.

[Jerry Peck]

So it looks like I am back where I started. An elderly person can go out that door, step off the landing, mistep because of the slope below the landing (not a flat surface), and land in a heap at the bottom... (as I read it.) :(

Rich,

Unfortunately, this is where I respond with my standard reply "Code is a minimum standard, code is the most unsafe one is legally allowed to build something."

That implies they are built it unsafe - they did, and that it is allowed as it is in compliance with the code - it is, so it really is "the most unsafe" they are "legally allowed" to do it.

[Billy Stephens]

So it looks like I am back where I started. An elderly person can go out that door, step off the landing, mistep because of the slope below the landing (not a flat surface), and land in a heap at the bottom... (as I read it.) :(

Thanks, Jerry.

They could also step out the front door of the residence and be struck by a FedEX Truck. :confused:

* what would either scenario have to do with conducting a Home Inspection?

[John Kogel]

It is a trip hazard in the yard. I think I would report it.

[Jerry Peck]

It is a trip hazard in the yard. I think I would report it.

I'm not sure a FedEx truck could be considered a "trip hazard" (unless you were really really tall) but could be considered a "run into hazard". ;)

[Billy Stephens]

I'm not sure a FedEx truck could be considered a "trip hazard" (unless you were really really tall) but could be considered a "run into hazard". ;)

Fed Ex has a hub here ( air) and one within 2 miles of the city limit ( ground) Run Over would be the most prominent hazard. ** your mileage may vary.:p

[John Kogel]

"IT" is a novel by Steven King. Remember the evil clown that lives in the sewer? Trip hazard, you bet. ;)

[Stuart Brooks]

Is this a buyer inspection? How old are the buyers? It wouldn't hurt to note the step off and suggest having a larger landing installed as a safety upgrade.

[Rich Goeken]

Is this a buyer inspection? How old are the buyers? It wouldn't hurt to note the step off and suggest having a larger landing installed as a safety upgrade.

Owner, 55+ community, after using it for a while discovered it was not easy to navigate. :(

[Gerry Schmitz]

Owner, 55+ community, after using it for a while discovered it was not easy to navigate. :(

As an "owner", I would be concerned that a guest took a tumble and then wound up suing me for allowing this hazard to exist.

Wet grass; step off wrong; and then landing backwards on concrete; ouch!

Maybe not part of the code but I have heard phrasing regarding having a "stable landing area".

[Billy Stephens]

As an "owner", I would be concerned that a guest took a tumble and then wound up suing me for allowing this hazard to exist.
String up some Crime Tape.

Wet grass; step off wrong; and then landing backwards on concrete; ouch!

Put down some of that Playground Rubber and bumper on the edge of the porch.

Maybe not part of the code but I have heard phrasing regarding having a "stable landing area".

Just fun-in. ;) Why not just Report what you see as a Safety Concern.

[Rich Goeken]

....Maybe not part of the code but I have heard phrasing regarding having a "stable landing area".

I like that Will use it today and see their reaction.

[Jerry Peck]

I like that Will use it today and see their reaction.

Another excellent phrase is: Slip, trip, and fall attorneys really like those areas.

[Jim Abram]

My questions are, what guidelines or codes are applicable to this, and what violations, if any, exist?

There are numerous guidelines for construction of safe walkways. First - Any egress door must have a safe access to the street. The maximum acceptable grade is between 8.33% and 11%. The walkway must also be a slip resistant surface .
This walkway,( or the lack of walkway), does not conform to accepted standards.

[Rick Cantrell]

It is a trip hazard in the yard. I think I would report it.


...Wet grass; step off wrong; and then landing backwards on concrete; ouch! ...
Wet grass, come on.


There are numerous guidelines for construction of safe walkways. First - Any egress door must have a safe access to the street. The acceptable grade is between 8.33% and 11%. The walkway must also be a slip resistant surface .
This walkway,( or the lack of walkway), does not conform to accepted standards.
8.33-11% ?
Any egress door must have access to the street?
The walk must be slip resistant?
Where are you getting that from?


Guys, you are WAY over-thinking this

[Jim Abram]

Wet grass, come on.

Guys, you are WAY over-thinking this


Rick - There are standards for safe walkways .If you client does a trip and fall , it will cost you.

- - - Updated - - -


Wet grass, come on.

Guys, you are WAY over-thinking this


Rick - There are standards for safe walkways .If you client does a trip and fall , it will cost you.

[Jerry Peck]

Any egress door must have a safe access to the street.

Incorrect.

Only the required egress door.

Emergency egress openings (not necessarily doors) also must have egress to a public way (which can be through a yard and through a gate).


The maximum acceptable grade is between 8.33% and 11%.

You got those numbers from?


The walkway must also be a slip resistant surface .

In public places, yes, but I don't recall that requirement for dwelling units.


This walkway,( or the lack of walkway), does not conform to accepted standards.

Where are you getting your "accepted standards" from?

[Jim Abram]

8.33-11% ?
Any egress door must have access to the street?
The walk must be slip resistant?
Where are you getting that from?


Guys, you are WAY over-thinking this


Rick - Hopefully you will not find out he hard way that the Codes do not address a number of issues . This is one of the issues that is not covered in the current Codes. This is that phrase in the IRC that applies "the IRC is meant to be all inclusive for typical residential construction and it relies on other codes only where alternatives are desired or where the code lacks coverage for the uncommon aspect of residential construction " Some of those other codes are ISO, ANSI,NFSI,ASTM ... which are applicable in this situation.
The scope of those Codes is overwhelming but I have never not been able to locate a reference to any condition that exists on a property.Everything is covered by some Code or Standard .
If something looks like it is a potential issue, as this is ,call it out. You have nothing to lose if you do.

[Jim Abram]

Incorrect.

Only the required egress door.

Emergency egress openings (not necessarily doors) also must have egress to a public way (which can be through a yard and through a gate).



Y



FYI
The applicable Standard is " Accessible Means of Egress - A continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel from any accessible point in a building or facility to a public way"

[Rick Cantrell]

(Quote was added in edit)

Rick - ...This is one of the issues that is not covered in the current Codes. ..

Actually, I think the IRC Building code does address this.
From the 2006 IRC ( Which is still in force in my area)

R311.4.3 Landings at doors. There shall be a floor or landing
on each side of each exterior door. The floor or landing
at the exterior door shall not be more than 1.5 inches (38
mm) lower than the top of the threshold. The landing shall
be permitted to have a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical
in 12 units horizontal (2-percent).
Exceptions:
1. Where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located
on the exterior side of a door, other than the
required exit door, a landing is not required for the
exterior side of the door provided the door, other
than an exterior storm or screen door does not
swing over the stairway.
2. The exterior landing at an exterior doorway shall
not be more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the
top of the threshold, provided the door, other than
an exterior storm or screen door does not swing
over the landing.

[Jerry Peck]

Rick - Hopefully you will not find out he hard way that the Codes do not address a number of issues . This is one of the issues that is not covered in the current Codes. This is that phrase in the IRC that applies "the IRC is meant to be all inclusive for typical residential construction and it relies on other codes only where alternatives are desired or where the code lacks coverage for the uncommon aspect of residential construction " Some of those other codes are ISO, ANSI,NFSI,ASTM ... which are applicable in this situation.
The scope of those Codes is overwhelming but I have never not been able to locate a reference to any condition that exists on a property.Everything is covered by some Code or Standard .
If something looks like it is a potential issue, as this is ,call it out. You have nothing to lose if you do.

Jim,

Yet again you are trying to include what is not included, to refer to what is not intended to be referred to, and what is not intended to be a part of the code or be applicable.

From the 2012 IRC: (underlining and bold are mine)
- Effective Use of the International Residential Code - - The International Residential Code® (IRC®) was created to serve as a complete, comprehensive code regulating the construction of single-family houses, two-family houses (duplexes) and buildings consisting of three or more townhouse units. All buildings within the scope of the IRC are limited to three stories above grade plane. For example, a four-story single-family house would fall within the scope of the International Building Code® (IBC®), not the IRC. The benefits of devoting a separate code to residential construction include the fact that the user need not navigate through a multitude of code provisions that do not apply to residential construction in order to locate that which is applicable. A separate code also allows for residential and nonresidential code provisions to be distinct and tailored to the structures that fall within the appropriate code’s scopes.
- - The IRC contains coverage for all components of a house or townhouse, including structural components, fireplaces and chimneys, thermal insulation, mechanical systems, fuel gas systems, plumbing systems and electrical systems.
- - The IRC is a prescriptive-oriented (specification) code with some examples of performance code language. It has been said that the IRC is the complete cookbook for residential construction. Section R301.1, for example, is written in performance language, but states that the prescriptive requirements of the code will achieve such performance.
- - It is important to understand that the IRC contains coverage for what is conventional and common in residential construction practice. While the IRC will provide all of the needed coverage for most residential construction, it might not address construction practices and systems that are atypical or rarely encountered in the industry. Sections such as R301.1.3, R301.2.1, R301.2.2, R320.1, R322.1, M1301.1, G2401.1 and P2601.1 refer to other codes either as an alternative to the provisions of the IRC or where the IRC lacks coverage for a particular type of structure, design, system, appliance or method of construction. In other words, the IRC is meant to be all inclusive for typical residential construction and it relies on other codes only where alternatives are desired or where the code lacks coverage for the uncommon aspect of residential construction. Of course, the IRC constantly evolves to address new technologies and construction practices that were once uncommon, but now common.
- - The IRC is unique in that much of it, including Chapters 3 through 9 and Chapters 34 through 43, is presented in an ordered format that is consistent with the normal progression of construction, starting with the design phase and continuing through the final trim-out phase. This is consistent with the "cookbook” philosophy of the IRC.
- - The IRC is divided into eight main parts, specifically, Part I—Administration, Part II—Definitions, Part III—Building Planning and Construction, Part IV—Energy Conservation, Part V—Mechanical, Part VI—Fuel Gas, Part VII—Plumbing and Part VIII—Electrical.



There is nothing whatsoever unique, uncommon, or alternative about that "landing" at that screen door.

Just because you can find wording in some unrelated source that addresses some unrelated condition does not mean it is applicable to residential dwelling units covered by the IRC.

I have a good, long time friend, who used to do home inspections and retired at the same time I did - he had a habit of trying to do what you are apparently trying to do: he would find wording which covered what he wanted it to say ... only problem was that what is was applicable to was not what he was trying to apply it to.

Just because some code some place say that there shall be a slip resistant floor for a landing does not mean it is applicable to a residential dwelling unit covered by the IRC. That standard may be applicable to a commercial floor area, or maybe even an area on Launch Pad 39 applicable to Space Shuttle Preparation Areas ... the first thing one must do it not look for wording they would like to apply but look for what is applicable - if it is not applicable it does not matter what it says.

[Jim Abram]

(Quote was added in edit)


Actually, I think the IRC Building code does address this.
From the 2006 IRC ( Which is still in force in my area)




Rick - I am referring to the walkway to the public way.

[Rick Cantrell]

Rick - I am referring to the walkway to the public way.

What walkway are you saying is required?
Only thing I could find is
R311.4.1 Exit door required. Not less than one exit door
conforming to this section shall be provided for each dwelling
unit. The required exit door shall provide for direct
access from the habitable portions of the dwelling to the
exterior without requiring travel through a garage.

This is saying one door is required to have direct access to the exterior, not every door. But the door in the picture does have access to the exterior.
I'm not trying to argue with you.
Don't just say there is a code, show me the code(s) you are referring to.

[Jerry Peck]

What walkway are you saying is required?
Only thing I could find is
R311.4.1 Exit door required. Not less than one exit door
conforming to this section shall be provided for each dwelling
unit. The required exit door shall provide for direct
access from the habitable portions of the dwelling to the
exterior without requiring travel through a garage.

This is saying one door is required to have direct access to the exterior, not every door. But the door in the picture does have access to the exterior.
I'm not trying to argue with you.
Don't just say there is a code, show me the code(s) you are referring to.

To clarify even further, that is saying that (bold is mine) "The required exit door shall provide for direct access from the habitable portions of the dwelling to the exterior without requiring travel through a garage", and that door from the screen porch is not "the required" door.

I'm not trying to argue with Jim either, just correcting what is not correct with what he is posting. :)

[Jim Abram]

To clarify even further, that is saying that (bold is mine) "The required exit door shall provide for direct access from the habitable portions of the dwelling to the exterior without requiring travel through a garage", and that door from the screen porch is not "the required" door.

I'm not trying to argue with Jim either, just correcting what is not correct with what he is posting. :)

" Accessible Means of Egress - A continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel from any accessible point in a building or facility to a public way"
The 2010 ADA Standard for Accessible Design, Sections 207.1 and 207.2, reference the
International Building Code® (IBC®) for “accessible
means of egress.” What does this mean?
WHAT IS A MEANS OF EGRESS?
A means of egress is the path available for a person
to leave a building, structure, or space. This route
must be unobstructed, and doors along this route
cannot be subject to locking from the side that people
will be leaving. For example, the rear exit door of a
building could require use of a key to get in from the
outside for security reasons, but the door must always
be openable from the inside without a key so that
people can get out in an emergency. This is especially
important during situations that may involve
evacuation by a large number of people at the same
time and/or panic-type situations.
A means of egress consists of three parts: exit access,
exit, and exit discharge. Exit access is the path from
any location within a building to an exit. An exit
is typically a door leading to the outside or, in a
multi-story building, an enclosed exit stairway. Exit
discharge is the path from the exit to the public way. A
public way is a space that is permanently deeded and
dedicated to public use, most often a street or alley.
ISN’T THE WAY IN ALWAYS THE WAY OUT

The IRC does not specifically address many issues . The point here is an Accessible Means of Egress ends at the public way not at the step outside the door. The absence of a walkway of some sort or steps to a level area in this location is a potential hazard.
There is a real world out there where people must get from the back door to the street in a reasonably safe manner.

- - - Updated - - -

[Billy Stephens]

A
public way is a space that is permanently deeded and
dedicated to public use, most often a street or alley.
ISN’T THE WAY IN ALWAYS THE WAY OUT


There is a real world out there where people must get from the back door to the street in a reasonably safe manner.

- - - Updated - - -
I guess my fenced in yard is a Violation as it blocks my or "the Public's unobstructed use" from the back door.
*what is I to do? :D

[Jerry Peck]

" Accessible Means of Egress - A continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel from any accessible point in a building or facility to a public way"
The 2010 ADA Standard for Accessible Design, ...
.
.
The IRC does not specifically address many issues . The point here is an Accessible Means of Egress ends at the public way not at the step outside the door. The absence of a walkway of some sort or steps to a level area in this location is a potential hazard.

The point of the discussion, and thus the point here, is that the screen door is not a, and not THE, REQUIRED means of egress.

The second point here is that the ADA is NOT APPLICABLE to the IRC and dwelling units shown in the original photo.


There is a real world out there where people must get from the back door to the street in a reasonably safe manner.

There is a real world out there and no is MUST get from THAT back door to the street - in the real world they MAY go out the back door and go to the street, but there is no reason that the MUST nor any requirement that they be able to do so.

If that back screen door lead out into a nice fenced in yard would you write it up as having no MEANS OF EGRESS and no ACCESSIBLE PATH from that screen door to the street?

Sometimes we need to stop trying to find codes WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE to the condition being discussed and actually realize that in THE REAL WORLD there are no requirements for many things ... no matter how much you may wish to try to find a way to require something ... in the REAL WORLD there are LIMITATIONS on requirements for things, such as there is no requirement that every car, much less any car, be built like a M1A1 Abrams tank to provide survivability for its occupants during disastrous crashes of two small cars head-on at 80 mph (160 mph closing speed).

You may wish that was a requirement, but there is not.

Neither is there any requirement for access from that back screen door to the public road.

Nor is there any requirement for a suitable landing at that screen door.

One may refer to it as a safety hazard, then again, one may refer to a Smart Car as a safety hazard because of its size and capability to cruise along at 75 mph on Interstate Highways, or to a Mercedes Benz 300 SL as a safety hazard because of its inability to control what the other cars around it are doing or are about to do.

EVERYTHING can be referred as a safety hazard.

One may want to clarify further and say that the sloping grassy landing outside that door could be a safety hazard to people who have trouble with their balance, trouble walking, etc., but what you are really doing is describing people who should not be going out that screen door and down that sloped grassy landing.

Would it have been in the builder's best interest to make a proper landing at that screen door? Ummm ... builder's "best" interest may be construed as some as being the cost of such a landing at each house versus the cost of the possibility of risk of being sued by any homeowner, or it could be construed as being the thing to do for each house to reduce the possibility of a hazard existing, in which case the builder may then need to do a safety assessment of every item of every house and make changes to the plans to eliminate (okay, reduce) safety hazards, including the types and styles of appliances installed (no gas appliances and they can cause fires or produce CO, no electrical appliances as electrical circuits can and do fail and cause fires, no plumbing as plumbing systems can and do leak that wet floors become slippery, no tile in the bathrooms are wet tile can become slippery, .... you get the idea - what is a suitable "risk" to some is a "hazard" to some others.

Off the soap box now, your turn.:pop2:

[Jim Abram]

The point of the discussion, and thus the point here, is that the screen door is not a, and not THE, REQUIRED means of egress.

The second point here is that the ADA is NOT APPLICABLE to the IRC and dwelling units shown in the original photo.



There is a real world out there and no is MUST get from THAT back door to the street - in the real world they MAY go out the back door and go to the street, but there is no reason that the MUST nor any requirement that they be able to do so.

If that back screen door lead out into a nice fenced in yard would you write it up as having no MEANS OF EGRESS and no ACCESSIBLE PATH from that screen door to the street?

Sometimes we need to stop trying to find codes WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE to the condition being discussed and actually realize that in THE REAL WORLD there are no requirements for many things ... no matter how much you may wish to try to find a way to require something ... in the REAL WORLD there are LIMITATIONS on requirements for things, such as there is no requirement that every car, much less any car, be built like a M1A1 Abrams tank to provide survivability for its occupants during disastrous crashes of two small cars head-on at 80 mph (160 mph closing speed).

You may wish that was a requirement, but there is not.

Neither is there any requirement for access from that back screen door to the public road.

Nor is there any requirement for a suitable landing at that screen door.

One may refer to it as a safety hazard, then again, one may refer to a Smart Car as a safety hazard because of its size and capability to cruise along at 75 mph on Interstate Highways, or to a Mercedes Benz 300 SL as a safety hazard because of its inability to control what the other cars around it are doing or are about to do.

EVERYTHING can be referred as a safety hazard.

One may want to clarify further and say that the sloping grassy landing outside that door could be a safety hazard to people who have trouble with their balance, trouble walking, etc., but what you are really doing is describing people who should not be going out that screen door and down that sloped grassy landing.

Would it have been in the builder's best interest to make a proper landing at that screen door? Ummm ... builder's "best" interest may be construed as some as being the cost of such a landing at each house versus the cost of the possibility of risk of being sued by any homeowner, or it could be construed as being the thing to do for each house to reduce the possibility of a hazard existing, in which case the builder may then need to do a safety assessment of every item of every house and make changes to the plans to eliminate (okay, reduce) safety hazards, including the types and styles of appliances installed (no gas appliances and they can cause fires or produce CO, no electrical appliances as electrical circuits can and do fail and cause fires, no plumbing as plumbing systems can and do leak that wet floors become slippery, no tile in the bathrooms are wet tile can become slippery, .... you get the idea - what is a suitable "risk" to some is a "hazard" to some others.

Off the soap box now, your turn.:pop2:

Jerry - If you fail to accept that an egress extends to the public way, ( even though that is the definition in the ICC), there is no point in continuing .
The ICC, IBC, IRC, .... et al are not the only applicable Codes. FYI, Any political subdivision can create codes that supercede any Building Code regulation. Many municipalities require a paved walkway from a rear or side exit to the street .
Beyond that , there is simple right and wrong . Would an walkway to the street be appropriate at this location ? In my opinion yes.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry - If you fail to accept that an egress extends to the public way, ( even though that is the definition in the ICC), there is no point in continuing .

Jim - If you fail to recognize that the code are referring the required egress and not the other egresses ... and ... that you keep bringing up codes which are not applicable - while there is no hope for you, I will be obligated to make sure you do not keep putting forth incorrect information without exposing it as incorrect information.



Would an walkway to the street be appropriate at this location ? In my opinion yes.

And your opinion is, thankfully, not anywhere near resembling what is required or what is accepted through the country.

I am surprised that you do not state that a walkway from that screened porch door would not require a walkway from the street in front of that house to the street in front of the house behind it, after all ... the codes you keep bringing up require two means of egress and a walkway between the two streets would suffice in providing those two accessible paths from the means of egress ... sheesh ... can't believe I'm giving Jim ideas for the future ... :confused: - this will come back to haunt me as Jim will post this in the future a supporting documentation that two accessible paths are required from a rear screened porch door ... :frusty: ... Jim, there is no supporting documentation there as that is not a requirement for a single family house (although I am sure you will try to find a way to twist it around into one).

[Jim Abram]

Jim - If you fail to recognize that the code are referring the required egress and not the other egresses ... and ... that you keep bringing up codes which are not applicable - while there is no hope for you, I will be obligated to make sure you do not keep putting forth incorrect information without exposing it as incorrect information.




And your opinion is, thankfully, not anywhere near resembling what is required or what is accepted through the country.

I am surprised that you do not state that a walkway from that screened porch door would not require a walkway from the street in front of that house to the street in front of the house behind it, after all ... the codes you keep bringing up require two means of egress and a walkway between the two streets would suffice in providing those two accessible paths from the means of egress ... sheesh ... can't believe I'm giving Jim ideas for the future ... [/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]:confused: - this will come back to haunt me as Jim will post this in the future a supporting documentation that two accessible paths are required from a rear screened porch door ... :frusty: ... Jim, there is no supporting documentation there as that is not a requirement for a single family house (although I am sure you will try to find a way to twist it around into one).

Jerry - Please tell me where you think I am wrong with this definition . -" Accessible Means of Egress - A continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel from any accessible point in a building or facility to a public way" It is straight from ICC.
Sorry ,but I dispute your representation as to what is accepted through the country .
I am in the process of design review that requires walkways from each door to satisfy codes.

[Jim Abram]

Jim -

And your opinion is, thankfully, not anywhere near resembling what is required or what is accepted through the country.

).


Jerry - It is not only. This is a quote from residential design standards for the City of Boston.
"Walkways shall be provided to secondary exterior doors."

The ICC, and related are only a small part of the puzzle, and are often overruled by local jurisdictions. You cannot always hang your hat on the ICC, IBC, IRC,... I believe that more often than not walkways are required from all exterior doors.
The ICC family of Codes is only a starting point to build off.It is a far bigger world than you think that it is.

[Jerry Peck]

Jim, Jim, Jim ...

Nothing is getting through to you ... again ... after all my posts ... you simply do not get it (or maybe you do get it and you are simply ignoring it - either way does not present a positive image of you).



Jerry - Please tell me where you think I am wrong with this definition .

Gladly, maybe this time you will pay attention and get it ... (but I doubt it).



Jerry - Please tell me where you think I am wrong with this definition . -" Accessible Means of Egress - A continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel from any accessible point in a building or facility to a public way" It is straight from ICC.

Quite incorrect (you are trying to fudge it so it sounds plausible to others) - that is not "straight from the ICC", that is straight from the IBC ... the difference is that the ICC is the International Code Council which promulgates building codes, ONE of which is the IBC and is the International BUILDING Code.

The IBC (International BUILDING Code) IS NOT applicable to: (bold and underlining are mine)
- SECTION 101 GENERAL - - [A] 101.1 Title.
- - - These regulations shall be known as the Building Code of [NAME OF JURISDICTION], hereinafter referred to as "this code.”
- - [A] 101.2 Scope.
- - - The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.
- - - - Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code.

The IRC (International RESIDENTIAL Code) is applicable to: (bold and underlining are mine)
- SECTION R101 GENERAL
- - R101.1 Title.
- - - These provisions shall be known as the Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings of [NAME OF JURISDICTION], and shall be cited as such and will be referred to herein as "this code.”
- - R101.2 Scope.
- - - The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures.
- - - - Exceptions:
- - - - - 1. Live/work units complying with the requirements of Section 419 of the International Building Code shall be permitted to be built as one- and two-family dwellings or townhouses. Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the International Building Code when constructed under the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall conform to Section P2904.
- - - - - 2. Owner-occupied lodging houses with five or fewer guestrooms shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings when equipped with a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section P2904.

Jim, are you catching on yet?

Yes, yet again you are trying to apply a non-applicable code to that which it does not apply and you are ignoring the applicable code which does apply because it does not say what you want it to say.


Sorry ,but I dispute your representation as to what is accepted through the country .
I am in the process of design review that requires walkways from each door to satisfy codes.

You may be, however, based on your posts here I would not take your word for anything being required which you say is required.

There is one thing you said which is correct and that is that each area of the country goes by the code which has been adopted by the AHJ which is over that area. We say that here all the time. In fact, in the case which is the basis for this discussion, a house in Florida, is covered und the FBC-R (Florida Building Code - Residential) which has the IRC as its base code with modifications made by and approved by the Florida Building Commission.


Jerry - It is not only. This is a quote from residential design standards for the City of Boston.
"Walkways shall be provided to secondary exterior doors."

The ICC, and related are only a small part of the puzzle, and are often overruled by local jurisdictions. You cannot always hang your hat on the ICC, IBC, IRC,... I believe that more often than not walkways are required from all exterior doors.
The ICC family of Codes is only a starting point to build off.It is a far bigger world than you think that it is.

To the contrary, Jim, the world of code is much large than you think it is ... HOWEVER ... the world of APPLICABLE CODES is not anywhere near as large as you think it is.

Now, as to your assertion that "Walkways shall be provided to secondary exterior doors.", please provide that code section and number and a link to it or a copy of the pdf page section which states that - thanks.

I searched but could not find the residential code for the City of Boston, however, I found the Residential Code for MA and a FAQ page, and that page contains the following: (bold is mine)
- 8th Residential Code FAQ's (http://www.mass.gov/eopss/consumer-prot-and-bus-lic/license-type/csl/building-code-one-and-two-family-dwelling.html#A10)
- Q: Do I need landings at all doors? I have a primary egress of 3' at the front of home and 2'-8" at the back. That would make my 2'-8" door to the garage not counted toward egress and therefore a landing would not be required in the garage as long as the door swings into the home. Is that correct? - A. Please see Section R311.3 Floors and landings at exterior doors. A landing may not be required if the door is not a required exit door.

I also found this:
- http://www.bpl.org/govinfo/online-collections/regional-boston-and-massachusetts/building-codes-relating-to-boston-1873-2008/
The above states the following: (bold is mine)
- Building Codes Relating to Boston (1873-2008) - - At one time, the City of Boston promulgated its own building code. In Massachusetts building codes were done municipality by municipality, and some simply adopted Boston’s code as their own. In 1974, the Commonwealth created a statewide code, which became the official code. Information in newer versions can be found here.

That is telling me that the City of Boston is using the statewide MA code which is using the IRC for its residential code and the MA amendments to the IRC are here:
- http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/dps/inf/780cmr/780-8th-51.pdf
- R311.1 and R311.2 Replace as follows:
- - R311.1 Means of Egress. All dwellings shall be provided with two 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 doors without requiring travel through a garage. For townhouses also see the Architectural Access Board’s regulations at 521 CMR. (Jerry's note: "unobstructed path" does not mean it requires a sidewalk, a grassy yard could be an unobstructed path.)
- - - Exception. Egress through the secondary egress door, required in subsection R311.2, may include travel through a garage provided the garage has an exit door meeting the requirements of a secondary egress door. (Jerry's note: The secondary egress door is even allowed to pass through a garage, very few locations (none that I am aware of other than CA) allow that, and very few garages can be deemed as providing an "unobstructed path".)
- - R311.2 Egress Door. At least two egress doors shall be provided for each dwelling unit, remote as possible from each other, at the normal level of exit.
- - - Exceptions:
- - - - 1. In multi-level dwellings, including but not limited to townhouses, split-level and raised ranch style layouts, the two separate egress doors required by R311.2 are permitted to be located on different levels.
- - - - 2. Where site topography prevents direct access at two remote locations to grade from the normal level of entry, the two separate egress doors required by R311.2 are permitted to be located on different levels.
- - - - The primary egress door shall be side-hinged, and shall provide a minimum clear width of 32 inches (813 mm) when measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees (1.57 rad). The secondary egress door shall be side-hinged or sliding, and shall provide a minimum clear width of 28 inches (711mm) when measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees (1.57 rad). The minimum clear height of the primary and secondary egress door opening shall not be less than 78 inches (1981 mm) in height measured from the top of the threshold to the bottom of the stop. Other exterior doors shall not be required to comply with these minimum dimensions. Egress doors shall be readily openable from inside the dwelling without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. (Jerry's note: Note that "other exterior doors shall not be required to ... ")

[Jim Abram]

[/COLOR]

- - - -

T ")
Jerry - Somehow you have hit a wall at the back door and do not have the ability to get to the street .
Again- The ICC , IBC and IRC are Starting points - Minimums only - They are not the be all end all as you say. If the IRC omits something ,it does not mean that it is exempt from regulation.


Jerry -See attached.
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Design Construction and Open Space Unit

RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS November 2010
New Construction & Rehabilitation Projects Page 10 of 37
Building Entrances
The first floors of typical Boston dwellings are raised above the curb 36 – 60 inches to provide a sense of
separation between public and private spaces. New residential entrances shall be raised above the sidewalk to be
similar to other properties in the neighborhood. Natural surveillance shall be used to discourage crime (i.e.,
entrances, parking, and walkways shall be visible from inside units and the street). Units requiring accessibility
according to Massachusetts Architectural Access Board are to develop site-grading strategies using 1:20
walkways and ramps. Ramps in one and two family construction are to be limited to no greater than 30 feet.
Front Porches
Front porches for detached 1-3 family buildings are required in neighborhoods where existing houses have front
porches. Porches for multi-family projects will be reviewed for neighborhood compatibility.
Building Layout – General Principles
Layout of buildings and units shall meet the following general design principles:
• Combination storm/screen doors shall be provided on exterior doors in proposed detached 1-3 family
rental units to improve cross ventilation and natural light in living spaces.
• Canopies or roofs or other weather protection shall be provided above all exterior doors where compatible
with the existing structure.
• Decks/platforms below small roofs or canopies shall be framed to provide a step down to the deck.
• Sliding doors or windows shall be avoided.
• Front walkways shall connect directly to the sidewalk and shall be sloped ¼ inch per foot away from
building in new construction.
• Walkways shall be provided to secondary exterior doors and shall be sloped ¼ inch per foot away from
building in new construction.
• Side and rear yards shall be enclosed with vinyl covered chain link fencing for detached 1-3 family
buildings.
• Exterior bulkhead access shall be provided in to basements of single, duplex, and two family dwellings in
new construction.
• Mailboxes shall be located at front entrances, fastened to painted plinth blocking.


Jerry - Even - Wikipedia understands that the egress does not end at the door.
"The phrase "means of egress" refers to the ability to exit the structure, primarily in the event of an emergency, such as a fire. Specifically, a means of egress is broken into three parts: the path of travel to an exit, the exit itself, and the exit discharge (the path to a safe area outside). " The path from the door to the public area is a regulated area despite what you are trying to claim...

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry - Somehow you have hit a wall at the back door and do not have the ability to get to the street .
Again- The ICC , IBC and IRC are Starting points - Minimums only - They are not the be all end all as you say. If the IRC omits something ,it does not mean that it is exempt from regulation.


Jerry -See attached.
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Design Construction and Open Space Unit

Jim,

Yet again stepping out beyond the boundaries of applicability ... please tell the fine folks on this board just what that applies to: a) all homes in Boston; b) specific applicability to specific homes in Boston.

I know the answer, let's see if you do.

[Jim Abram]

Jim,

Yet again stepping out beyond the boundaries of applicability ... please tell the fine folks on this board just what that applies to: a) all homes in Boston; b) specific applicability to specific homes in Boston.

I know the answer, let's see if you do.


Jerry - It really does not matter except to the "Code Obsessed".

The point here that you are trying really hard to ignore is that having a reasonable egress is an important aspect in any building. I find it unusual that the IRC has omitted an aspect that is included in all basic codes. I think that it is an oversight.
My thought, when I saw the attached picture was how could you get a stretcher to the rear door or rear yard if necessary ? Egress is also for the access of emergency personnel.

[Billy Stephens]

.
My thought, when I saw the attached picture was how could you get a stretcher to the rear door or rear yard if necessary ?

Probably the same way as upstairs.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry - It really does not matter except to the "Code Obsessed".

The point here that you are trying really hard to ignore is that having a reasonable egress is an important aspect in any building. I find it unusual that the IRC has omitted an aspect that is included in all basic codes. I think that it is an oversight.
My thought, when I saw the attached picture was how could you get a stretcher to the rear door or rear yard if necessary ? Egress is also for the access of emergency personnel.

Let's see ... you started out trying to apply a non applicable code for Boston to a house in Florida, then you tried to regroup by going in circles and squares (because circles did not work out), then you tried backing yourself into a corner trying to say that code applied to Boston, now - after spending untold time and posts trying to defend your ascertain that such a code applies to every place ... and you are enjoying exposed that the code you have been standing on does not even apply to Boston as it only applies specific and limited projects ...

... you are now saying that code does not matter - that because you think it should be there ... it should be there.

I think I got it now - I have been debating 'Watson Jr'.

[Jim Abram]

Let's see ... you started out trying to apply a non applicable code for Boston to a house in Florida, then you tried to regroup by going in circles and squares (because circles did not work out), then you tried backing yourself into a corner trying to say that code applied to Boston, now - after spending untold time and posts trying to defend your ascertain that such a code applies to every place ... and you are enjoying exposed that the code you have been standing on does not even apply to Boston as it only applies specific and limited projects ...

... you are now saying that code does not matter - that because you think it should be there ... it should be there.

I think I got it now - I have been debating 'Watson Jr'.

No Jerry - You still cannot get it correct.Egress does not end at the door. For years the egress Codes have required access to the street . The IBC still requires it ,as do many others . I did mention one specific example . Just because the IRC does not mention it ,you seem to believe that it does not have to exist. I think that you are incorrect.

AGAIN - The code is the minimum standard. Anyone who defends doing as little as possible just to be Code compliant thinks alot differently than I do.

[Jerry Peck]

No Jerry - You still cannot get it correct.Egress does not end at the door. For years the egress Codes have required access to the street . The IBC still requires it ,as do many others . I did mention one specific example . Just because the IRC does not mention it ,you seem to believe that it does not have to exist. I think that you are incorrect.

AGAIN - The code is the minimum standard. Anyone who defends doing as little as possible just to be Code compliant thinks alot differently than I do.

No Jim, YOU still do not get it correct. The REQUIRED egress door requires such access, the other secondary doors (secondary egress doors is you want) do not require such access - we JUST WENT THROUGH THAT incorrect code stuff of yours and found out that you do not know what you are talking about ... and that has, unfortunately but obviously, not changed.

I have always said that the code is a minimum standard, and (as you should be able to recall) stated on many occasions that "Code is the most unsafe one can legally build to." The part YOU are missing is that one CAN (IS ALLOWED TOO) build to the minimum code and that NO ONE IS REQUIRED to do any better by the codes.

One MAY CHOOSE to do better, but there is no requirement to do better.

YOU are not speaking of thing being "code compliant" ... YOU are speaking of things being "JIM ABRAM compliant", and being "JIM ABRAM compliant" is not required anywhere.

I do know what being "code compliant" is, and that is being allowed TO BUILD SOMETHING THE MOST UNSAFE LEGALLY ALLOWED (i.e., "code compliant"). YOU may not like it, but YOU do not control what is or is not code compliant ... and you are showing us that you do not even know what codes are or understand that there IS NO REQUIREMENT to exceed code in the codes.

You need to pull your head out of your butt and open your eyes to let the daylight shine in ... maybe then you will open your brain and thinking up to get away from espousing "JIM ABRAM's compliance" and start actually learning what codes are ... and, it appears, even more importantly, what codes ARE NOT.

[Jim Abram]

No Jim, YOU still do not get it correct. The REQUIRED egress door requires such access, the other secondary doors (secondary egress doors is you want) do not require such access - we JUST WENT THROUGH THAT incorrect code stuff of yours and found out that you do not know what you are talking about ... and that has, unfortunately but obviously, not changed.

I have always said that the code is a minimum standard, and (as you should be able to recall) stated on many occasions that "Code is the most unsafe one can legally build to." The part YOU are missing is that one CAN (IS ALLOWED TOO) build to the minimum code and that NO ONE IS REQUIRED to do any better by the codes.

One MAY CHOOSE to do better, but there is no requirement to do better.

YOU are not speaking of thing being "code compliant" ... YOU are speaking of things being "JIM ABRAM compliant", and being "JIM ABRAM compliant" is not required anywhere.

I do know what being "code compliant" is, and that is being allowed TO BUILD SOMETHING THE MOST UNSAFE LEGALLY ALLOWED (i.e., "code compliant"). YOU may not like it, but YOU do not control what is or is not code compliant ... and you are showing us that you do not even know what codes are or understand that there IS NO REQUIREMENT to exceed code in the codes.

You need to pull your head out of your butt and open your eyes to let the daylight shine in ... maybe then you will open your brain and thinking up to get away from espousing "JIM ABRAM's compliance" and start actually learning what codes are ... and, it appears, even more importantly, what codes ARE NOT.

Jerry - What you seem to be missing is that the IRC , although it is intended to be a one stop cook book for residential construction, has failed to meet that goal. The IRC is relatively new and still needs significant work.
Codes have evolved over hundreds of years based on accumulated knowledge and data. To discard what has been learned in order to create something that is simpler is absurd. The three elements of an egress have always been a mainstay of Codes . To neglect the third element entirely is absurd. The IRC is in direct conflict with accepted safety practices,( by ommission), and as such requires modification.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry - What you seem to be missing is ...
.
.
The three elements of an egress have always been a mainstay of Codes .

Jim, yet again you are missing the intent of the codes and trying to apply a non-applicable code because YOU think it should be applied.

The BUILDING code contains the more complex egress requirements, just as it contains more complex requirements for many things. This is in large part because people other than one's own family will be in those buildings and one has an obligation to provide a higher level of safety.

The RESIDENTIAL code contains fewer requirements on the basis that 'a home is a man's castle' and that the code is only addressing the minimum required for the minimum level of safety. If one wants to put their own family at risk, the code does not, cannot, address that in the same way as it can, and does, for other than residential building (by residential the different codes are Residential for 1&2 Family and Townhouses - Building for Other Than 1&2 Family and Townhouses).

The residential code is all encompassing and is limited in its intent and coverage BY DESIGN ... I UNDERSTAND that YOU DO NOT LIKE IT ... all I can say is that you should submit code changes for the things you do not like ... or ... get over it. And if you submit code changes which are not approved, you still need to ... get over it ... the residential code is not the way you want it to be, it is that way on purpose.

It really is that simple.

One last word of advice ... okay, three words of advice: Get over it.:deadhorse: :welcome:

[Rich Goeken]

... okay, three words of advice: Get over it.:deadhorse: :welcome:


Ah, Jerry you silver tounged old dog, you just have a way with words!!! :D

[Jerry Peck]

Rich,

I was having a discussion with some building officials on this very code section and the light in my head went off ("went off", then why do cartoons show it "lighting up"?) ...

The code is saying that there needs to be a landing on EACH SIDE of the exterior doors, except, such as in your photo, the landing is permitted to NOT BE on that SIDE of the door, the landing is permitted to be at the bottom of the one step stair.

There is a difference. Think of it this way, if the stair had three risers a landing would be required at the bottom AND at the top of the stairs ... with the top of the stairs being that "side of the exterior door".

That means that the ground at the bottom of that one riser stair IS a "landing" and must therefore meet the requirements of a landing.

[Jerry Peck]

Jim,

As has been pointed out so many times before ... and is being pointed out yet again here ... you are so far off base you have no idea what you are talking about.


That is debateable . Is that concrete slab the landing or a stair ?

But ...to back track on this post a little to the definition of " means of egress".

The IRC does not define "means of egress"
The IRC states where anything is not defined in the IRC refer to the other ICC codes for definition.

The IBC , as mentioned many times in the post s above above ,defines " Accessible Means of Egress - A continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel from any accessible point in a building or facility to a public way"

Therefore the IRC requires an egress to the street.

Your position that if it is not mentioned in the IBC it is not required is faulty.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry - How does it smell where your head is ?
Intimidation does not work.You lack a basic understanding of how Codes work .
For instance what is the definition of "Means of egress" in the IRC?

The air up here is fine, don't know about the air down where your head is ... but so much for bantering on where you keep your head (don't want these posts to be deleted).

No intimidation going on, just sound and realistic assessment of your posts, the your presentation of your lack of knowledge of the codes, and how they are applied.

All one has to do is go back through your previous posts and read all the time you try to apply codes which are not applicable to the location, not applicable to the subject, etc.

In an effort to keep this post and the others from being deleted by Brian, I'll do my best to ignore your beating yourself up and exposing your lack of knowledge and try my best to only address the incorrect information you spew forth Waston-like. We went through a very long time of dealing with Watson, hopefully we will not have to deal with him reincarnated as you (except Watson actually knew quite a bit) for a long time to come.

[Rick Cantrell]

The IBC , as mentioned many times in the post s above above ,defines " Accessible Means of Egress - A (1) continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel from any accessible point in a building (2) or facility to a public way"

Therefore the IRC requires an egress to the street.


(1) A- Singular,; At least one; Not every
(2) any accessible point in a building- Any place (room) IN THE BUILDING must have access to a door that leads to a public way.

IE There must be at least one door that someone can exit from any room in the building. Does not say every door has be the required exit door.
For example: Some houses have a door open to a balcony, These doors are not required to meet the requirements of "The exit door". ONLY ONE DOOR is required to be "The exit door.
Ever seen a sliding glass door? A Sliding door cannot be "The REQUIRED exit door", but it is a door.

[Rick Cantrell]

Rick - I agree with what you are saying because the current IRC@ R311.2 only requires one means of egress . ( I do not understand that change but, that is what it says). but,... for many years two means of egress was the standard requirement .

Good. You understand that only one door is required to be "The Exit Door".
And the door shown in the OP is not "The Required Exit Door".
Therefore, the door shown in the OP is not required to meet the standards of "The Required Exit Door".
IE The door shown in the OP is not required to lead to a public place.

[Rick Cantrell]

Rick - I am assuming that you mean Egress door.
Yes




Nothing in the picture indicates that the door is not the required egress door
I don't believe you really think the door shown in the OP is "The Required Egress Door".
Do you?

[Rick Cantrell]

If you install three egress doors in one building, do all three have to conform with egress regulations?
Only one door has to meet the requirements of "The Required Egress Door".
Other doors have lesser requirements.
For example"
The required egress door must be 36" wide, other doors may be less.
The required egress door must be side hinge, other doors can be sliding.

[Rick Cantrell]

Rick - I think that the required width for an egress door is now 32" - I do not understand the reduction from 36"
In my area we still use the 2006 IRC which states 36" . I don't know about other editions of the IRC



but ,.. if you have three side hinged doors that are 36"wide in one single family building do all have to conform with the requirement for egress?
No, only one door must meet the requirements for being "The required egress door".
Other doors may or may not meet those requirements.
Requirements for doors other than the required egress door are different.

[Jerry Peck]

Rick,

Have you concluded that trying to explain life and codes to Jim is something akin to trying to nail Jello to a tree?

Jim does not grasp the part of the codes which address applicability and thus grasps at straws or anything else he can think of without first checking to see if it is applicable to the discussion.

Jim hasn't referenced anything which is applicable yet.

[Rick Cantrell]

Now here is my point . There is nothing in the IRC that address the egress discharge
Jim, Yes the IRC does address this;
From the 2006 IRC
SECTION R311
MEANS OF EGRESS
R311.1 General. Stairways, ramps, exterior egress balconies,
hallways and doors shall comply with this section.
R311.2 Construction.
R311.2.1 Attachment. Required exterior egress balconies,
exterior exit stairways and similar means of egress
components shall be positively anchored to the primary
structure to resist both vertical and lateral forces. Such
attachment shall not be accomplished by use of toenails or
nails subject to withdrawal.
R311.2.2Under stair protection. Enclosed accessible space
under stairs shall have walls, under stair surface and any soffits
protected on the enclosed sidewith 1/2-inch (13 mm) gypsum
board.
R311.3 Hallways. The minimum width of a hallway shall be
not less than 3 feet (914 mm).
R311.4 Doors.
R311.4.1 Exit door required. Not less than one exit door
conforming to this section shall be provided for each dwelling
unit. The required exit door shall provide for direct
access from the habitable portions of the dwelling to the
exterior without requiring travel through a garage. Access to
habitable levels not having an exit in accordance with this
section shall be by a ramp in accordance with Section
R311.6 or a stairway in accordance with Section R311.5.
R311.4.2 Door type and size. The required exit door shall
be a side-hinged door not less than 3 feet (914 mm) in width
and 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm) in height. Other doors shall
not be required to comply with these minimum dimensions.
R311.4.3 Landings at doors. There shall be a floor or landing
on each side of each exterior door. The floor or landing
at the exterior door shall not be more than 1.5 inches (38
mm) lower than the top of the threshold. The landing shall
be permitted to have a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical
in 12 units horizontal (2-percent).
Exceptions:
1. Where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located
on the exterior side of a door, other than the
required exit door, a landing is not required for the
exterior side of the door provided the door, other
than an exterior storm or screen door does not
swing over the stairway.
2. The exterior landing at an exterior doorway shall
not be more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the
top of the threshold, provided the door, other than
an exterior storm or screen door does not swing
over the landing.
3. The height of floors at exterior doors other than the
exit door required by Section R311.4.1 shall not be
more than 73/4 inches (186 mm) lower than the top
of the threshold.
The width of each landing shall not be less than the door
served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of
36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

.referring to the IBC I find :
Jim, For this discussion referring to the IBC is irrelevant, and I think you know that also.
The IRC IS the standard code for single family buildings.

[Jerry Peck]

Maybe can you provide some insight as to the correct path.

Jim,

I have provided more than that in the past, you are either not reading it or not understanding it - but here it is: (bold and underlining are mine)
- From the 2012 IRC
- - 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.

" ... to the exterior of the dwelling ... " AT THE REQUIRED (that is singular) egress door

... that continues by stating "without requiring travel through a garage."

Only ONE egress door is REQUIRED.

The ONLY door which is REQUIRED to provide egress to the exterior of the dwelling is that ONE REQUIRED egress door.

For sleeping rooms (bedrooms), a secondary EERO (Emergency Escape and Rescue Opening) is required. That EERO may be a sliding glass door, a window of any type (casement, single hung, double hung, awning, etc., if and only if that secondary opening meets the requirements and limitations stated in the code.

ALL EERO shall meet this:
- Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.

Maybe you are confusing doors other than the required egress door with EEROs?

A door which is other than the required egress door may, or may not, open to a yard or public way. However, if that door serves as an EERO for a sleeping room, then it is required to open to a public way or yard or court which opens to a public way - but the path is not required to be flat, smooth, or anything, only that you can get to the public way.

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry and Rick - From the beginning, this thread has been about getting from the door to the street . There is nothing in the IRC about access from the egress door , ( the third part of the egress) . Where in the IRC does one find the requirements for the egress discharge, ( the part of the egress from the egress door to the public way)?
Well Jim, I think it was YOU that said it was required to lead to the street. I don't think I said it, or anybody else.
I think (without reading it) the IRC says "to the exterior".
So, for the discussion of the OP, THAT IS TO THE EXTERIOR.

[Jerry Peck]

Unless you are nimble like a goat and can go down to the center of the grade, or able to walk through the mulch and planting, it is difficult for an elderly person to get to the back yard.


Jerry and Rick - From the beginning, this thread has been about getting from the door to the street .

Jim,

Are you so used to misquoting things and misapplying things that you don't even bother to check your facts anymore?

Jim: "From the beginning, this thread has been about getting from the door to the street ."

Rich: From the beginning - this is from the original post " ... it is difficult for an elderly person to get to the back yard."

Jim, NOTHING "in the beginning" was said about getting to the street, that came up when you came in and tried hijacking the thread with your posts of irrelevant non-facts and non-applicable codes.

[Jerry Peck]

" Unless you are nimble like a goat and can go down to the center of the grade, or able to walk through the mulch and planting, it is difficult for an elderly person to get to the back yard.

My questions are, what guidelines or codes are applicable to this, and what violations, if any, exist? "

Rick - This is where it started. My position is simply , if it is not addressed by the IRC then one would refer to the other ICC codes in this case the IBC. I do not think the intent of the IRC is that if it is not covered by the IRC , you can do whatever you want.


Jim,

Now you want to redirect and misdirect us so we don't remember what you said? Someone else who used to post here and drive everyone crazy with his posts always tried the same thing when things didn't go as he said.

Show us in the quoted part, I quoted it and you quoted it, where this was about getting to the street.


Jerry and Rick - From the beginning, this thread has been about getting from the door to the street .

You said it, now show us where that was what this thread has been about from the beginning.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry it is right in front of you.
" Unless you are nimble like a goat and can go down to the center of the grade, or able to walk through the mulch and planting, it is difficult for an elderly person to get to the back yard."

Jim,

Yes, it is right in front of you ... in fact ... I will make it bold for you with ... (I dread having to bring out the colored crayons) ... red highlighting:
Unless you are nimble like a goat and can go down to the center of the grade, or able to walk through the mulch and planting, it is difficult for an elderly person to get to the back yard."

Jim ... can you read that ... "to get to the back yard" ... does not say anything about: "From the beginning, this thread has been about getting from the door to the street... "

That is what you said, you can read it right there, now stop trying to redirect and misdirect everyone from what you incorrectly stated ... Jeeze, Jim, do you think everyone here is dumb and cannot read what you write?

[Rick Cantrell]

Guys

I don't think anyone here is stupid (unable to learn),
maybe ignorant ( not knowing, unlearned),
but when I think someone is being contrary (perversely inclined to disagree) ,
well then, there's nothing else for me to say.

[Jerry Peck]

Jim,

Yes, it is right in front of you ... in fact ... I will make it bold for you with ... (I dread having to bring out the colored crayons) ... red highlighting:
Unless you are nimble like a goat and can go down to the center of the grade, or able to walk through the mulch and planting, it is difficult for an elderly person to get to the back yard."

Jim ... can you read that ... "to get to the back yard" ... does not say anything about: "From the beginning, this thread has been about getting from the door to the street... "

That is what you said, you can read it right there, now stop trying to redirect and misdirect everyone from what you incorrectly stated ... Jeeze, Jim, do you think everyone here is dumb and cannot read what you write?


The question from the beginning was the walkway between the houses that is in the picture.

That has been the topic from the beginning.



but when I think someone is being contrary (perversely inclined to disagree),
well then, there's nothing else for me to say.

Rick,

You are absolutely correct about that and I have to agree with you.

We have been through this before, for what about 3-4 years? It has been peaceful the last 6 months or so without him or this.

Now we have another person taking his place, only Watson actually had nuggets of knowledge in some of his posts (not saying it was enough to miss him and want the trouble he created back), just that, so far, Jim has shown none of the knowledge nuggets in his posts as they are just all him saying this is how it is required to be without any supporting and applicable documentation.

The only problem about not replying to Jim is the same problem about not replying to Watson - if no one replies with the correct information, the misinformation is left there for everyone to read and think it may be correct ... a dilemma as to whether to reply to his posts or not ... that is for sure.

I wonder if Brian can add a "Incorrect Information" button which could be checked instead of having to reply and keep him going? That way others would know to ignore those posts too.

[Jerry Peck]

Rick and Jerry - This is what you are missing or ignoring.
“Means of egress,” as defined by the IBC, ...

Jim - This is what you are missing or ignoring.
"Applicability" as in the IRC is applicable and the IBC is not applicable.

[Billy Stephens]

Do you really think that there are no regulations regarding passage from the rear of a property?

Yep!..
* we been trying to tell you just that.

[Billy Stephens]

Thanks Billy. for confirming that you do not understand the regulations especially when some are posted earlier in this thread .

Wish as you might there are No Requirement for an Unobstructed Path to the Street from the rear of a Residence.

[Jerry Peck]

Wish as you might there are No Requirement for an Unobstructed Path to the Street from the rear of a Residence.

Billy,

Jim is single-handedly turning Brian's very useful board into one full of useless misinformation and in trying to offset his posts with corrected information we are helping to turn the board into one which is no longer a good resource for information due to all the "fighting", yet if we do not continue to post corrected information then the board will become useless to anyone.

That is the bad part of all of this ... and it is a shame that it is happening to Brian's up-until-now very useful board.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry - If you read through the posts ,you will find that there is little or no corrected information provided by you .

Jim - you have yet again failed to read the posts and understand what you are reading, otherwise you would realize your statement above is incorrect.


You see to focus on personal attacks instead of answering legitimate questions or proving information . It seems that you are the one "fighting".

No personal attacks, Jim, just trying to help you understand your limitations and that you do not understand what "applicability" means ... all I am doing is seeing the obvious lack of you understanding and trying to point out ways to help you - it is your incessant continued posting of code which are not applicable that has created on long nightmarish thread, not only here in this thread, but in the other threads you have tried to take over and apply your non-applicable references to.

Hopefully, Brian will step in and delete some posts before this chases readers away and creates a problem, until then, though, your continued non-applicable posts with incorrect information needs to be addressed and exposed for being non-applicable and incorrect information.

[Billy Stephens]

This is a new home in a 55+ community. The grade between the homes is designed to drain from the street in the front of the house, out the back to part of a lake. The distance from the house to the center of the drainage grade is 6'-0" and the drop from the top of the step is 1'-8".

Unless you are nimble like a goat and can go down to the center of the grade, or able to walk through the mulch and planting, it is difficult for an elderly person to get to the back yard.

My questions are, what guidelines or codes are applicable to this, and what violations, if any, exist?


Jerry - Your lack of understanding is astounding . There is a big world out there and the IRC is not the be all end all . Your obsession with the IRC is disturbing.
Many areas regulate egress outside the buildings.
For instance more documentation from NY

MEANS OF EGRESS PMC 702.1 General. A safe, continuous and unobstructed path of
travel shall be provided from any point in a building or structure to the
public way. Means of egress shall comply with the Fire Code of New
York State.

This is not an IRC forum ,it is an inspection forum that is visited by people from many locations.You fail to realize that different places have different rules and I have posted many of them. You also fail to understand that if a component is not defined in the IRC it becomes subject to the other ICC codes. To state that there is no requirement for an egress to the street is simply absurd.

What does this have to do with the OP from Florida's question?:confused: PMC Property Maintenance Code NY referenced to Fire Code of NY State.
*So who is being absurd.