Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 65 of 72
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    552

    Default Step off and Away-you-go!

    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?

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    NHIE Practice Exam

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Posts
    4,170

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    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.

    Jim Luttrall
    www.MrInspector.net
    Plano, Texas

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    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).

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    552

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    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, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    552

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Memphis TN.
    Posts
    4,311

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    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.

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

    It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie! Our Gang " The Pooch " (1932)
    Billy J. Stephens HI Service Memphis TN.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,549

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

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

    John Kogel, RHI, BC HI Lic #47455
    www.allsafehome.ca

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kogel View Post
    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".

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Memphis TN.
    Posts
    4,311

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.

    It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie! Our Gang " The Pooch " (1932)
    Billy J. Stephens HI Service Memphis TN.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,549

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

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

    John Kogel, RHI, BC HI Lic #47455
    www.allsafehome.ca

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    885

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    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.

    The above statements are expressed solely as my opinion and in all probability will conflict with someone else's.
    Stu, Fredericksburg VA

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    552

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Brooks View Post
    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.


  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    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".


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Memphis TN.
    Posts
    4,311

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Schmitz View Post
    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.

    It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie! Our Gang " The Pooch " (1932)
    Billy J. Stephens HI Service Memphis TN.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    552

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Schmitz View Post
    ....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.


  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    I like that Will use it today and see their reaction.
    Another excellent phrase is: Slip, trip, and fall attorneys really like those areas.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  21. #21
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    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.

    Last edited by Jim Abram; 02-18-2014 at 04:11 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kogel View Post
    It is a trip hazard in the yard. I think I would report it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Schmitz View Post
    ...Wet grass; step off wrong; and then landing backwards on concrete; ouch! ...
    Wet grass, come on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  23. #23
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    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.


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  25. #25
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    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.



  26. #26
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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"


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    (Quote was added in edit)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    Last edited by Rick Cantrell; 02-22-2014 at 08:27 AM. Reason: added quote
    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  29. #29
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    (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.


  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  32. #32
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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 - - -


  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Memphis TN.
    Posts
    4,311

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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?

    It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie! Our Gang " The Pooch " (1932)
    Billy J. Stephens HI Service Memphis TN.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post

    " 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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  35. #35
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.
    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.


  36. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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 ...
    - 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 ... ... 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 Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  37. #37
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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] - 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 ... ... 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.


  38. #38
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.

    Last edited by Jim Abram; 02-24-2014 at 10:11 AM.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post

    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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
    - 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-co...ton-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/i...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 ... ")

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  40. #40
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post




    [/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...

    Last edited by Jim Abram; 02-25-2014 at 06:11 AM.

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  42. #42
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.


  43. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Memphis TN.
    Posts
    4,311

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    .
    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.

    It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie! Our Gang " The Pooch " (1932)
    Billy J. Stephens HI Service Memphis TN.

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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'.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  45. #45
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.

    Last edited by Jim Abram; 02-25-2014 at 02:04 PM.

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  47. #47
    Jim Abram's Avatar
    Jim Abram Guest

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.


  48. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  49. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    552

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    ... okay, three words of advice: Get over it.

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


  50. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    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, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  51. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  52. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  53. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  54. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  55. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    Rick - I am assuming that you mean Egress door.
    Yes


    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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?

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  56. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  57. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  58. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  59. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    .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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  60. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  61. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  62. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Goeken View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  63. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    " 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post
    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, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  64. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Abram View Post

    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?


    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  65. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Step off and Away-you-go!

    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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •