EERO / public way / sprinklers

[cdstudio]

I have a unique situation and am trying to understand the issue and options.

There are four adjacent 2 story (with an attic) single family buildings (approximately 1600sf ea.) in an urban historic rowhouse style block (18'x100' lots). The buildings are full width and are separated by 2hr masonry walls. The lots are in the middle of the block and are therefore landlocked (meaning the rear yards do not have access to the public right of way as is typical in older historic neighborhoods).
Use is R-5 - single family townhouse not more than 3 stories with separate means of egress.

2 of the owners have received approval for changing the rear attic space to a habitable space (family room and a bathroom). The other 2 owners want to construct the same envelope but for a bedroom and a full bath. (Basically they added a wall with a door and nicer bathroom) But the fire official is saying that the "..the newly created bedroom needs access to the public right of way.." (which is impossible since the lot is landlocked). He told the contractor that if a sprinkler system is installed in the entire building then it would be ok. I am not sure I understand his logic, Is there an exception for EERO access to the public way if the building is sprinklered? He also indicated that if we just remove the door and call it a family room, that would be fine.......does that really make it ok?

Could the "unobstructed path" to the public way mentioned in exception 3 below be back through the house to the front door?

R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue opening required.
Every sleeping room shall have not less than one operable emergency escape and rescue opening. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court having a minimum width of 36” inches that opens to a public way.
Exceptions:
3. A yard shall not be required to open directly into a public way where the yard opens to an unobstructed path from the yard to the public way. Such path shall have a width not less than 36 inches.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

You posted under "Residential Building Codes," but you reference R-5 occupancy. There is no R-5 in the IRC, so we need to know what code applies.

Second, if this is an historic row house neighborhood, does that mean that each house is a separate property on a separate lot, and the 2-hour party walls are also on the property lines?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Could the "unobstructed path" to the public way mentioned in exception 3 below be back through the house to the front door?

No. It must be directly form outside of the Emergency escape and rescue opening

 

[cdstudio]

You posted under "Residential Building Codes," but you reference R-5 occupancy. There is no R-5 in the IRC, so we need to know what code applies.

Second, if this is an historic row house neighborhood, does that mean that each house is a separate property on a separate lot, and the 2-hour party walls are also on the property lines?

In the 2021 IBC - NJ edition adds a section:

310.6 Residential Group R-5
Residential Group R-5 occupancies shall include all detached one-and two family dwellings not more than three stories in height with a separate means of egress and multiple single-family townhouses not more than three stories in height with a separate means of egress designed and constructed in accordance with the International Residential Code.

So this is a single-family townhouse not more than 3 stories, and I was referencing the 2021 IRC - NJ edition
And yes, each house is a separate property and lot with different owners and the masonry party walls are centered on the property lines.

 

[cdstudio]

No. It must be directly form outside of the Emergency escape and rescue opening

So you need a window with the proper dimensions, and a yard that gets to the public right of way, but it doesn't say you need a way to get from the window to the yard. Is the intent meant for first responders to access the back bedrooms?

 

[Yikes]

Just to clarify, even though the code for EEROs is located in a chapter called "Means of Egress", EEROs are do not constitute a means of EGRESS, they are a means of ESCAPE and RESCUE.
New Jersey UCC (based on the IBC contains this definition:

Means of Egress​

A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.​

An escape window does not provide for egress travel (unless you count falling out as vertical egress!).

A few other definitions:

YARD. An open space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically provided by this code, on the lot on which a building is situated.​

COURT. An open, uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky, bounded on three or more sides by exterior building walls or other enclosing devices.​

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So you need a window with the proper dimensions, and a yard that gets to the public right of way, but it doesn't say you need a way to get from the window to the yard. Is the intent meant for first responders to access the back bedrooms?

Yes. That's why they are called Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings. The minimum windows dimensions are to accommodate a firefghter wearing a Scott airpack.

 

[Yikes]

Yes. That's why they are called Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings. The minimum windows dimensions are to accommodate a firefghter wearing a Scott airpack.

See also this post, in thread 'Egress windows', where the CA state fire marshal clarified that there is not prescriptive requirement to provide for ladder space for the EEROs.
https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/egress-windows.32694/post-276906

 

[cdstudio]

No. It must be directly form outside of the Emergency escape and rescue opening

Well - the yard is directly outside the EERO. But the access to the public way is the issue.

but the exception in the IRC reads: "A yard shall not be required to open directly into a public way where the yard opens to an unobstructed path from the yard to the public way"
Could the "unobstructed path" from the yard to the Public Right of Way go back through the interior space of the house? or does it have to lead directly to a street on the exterior which would be impossible for interior lots with no side yard or without easements.

The IBC doesn't have that exception, however there is an exception in section 1028.5 Exit Discharge - Access to a public way:
Where access to a public way cannot be provided, a safe dispersal area shall be provided where all of the following are met:
1. The area shall be of a size to accommodate not less than 5 square feet for each person.
2. The area shall be located on the same lot not less than 50 feet away from the building requiring egress
3. The area shall be permanently maintained and identified as a safe dispersal area
4. The area shall be provided with a safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building

We can meet all of those except we are only 30' away since it is a small lot.

 

[Yikes]

There are many residential buildings that have central courtyards with EEROs, and the exit path goes through an a rated
Exit Passageway to reach the public right of way. It’s kind of like a “vomitory” at a stadium.

 

[cdstudio]

There are many residential buildings that have central courtyards with EEROs, and the exit path goes through an a rated
Exit Passageway to reach the public right of way. It’s kind of like a “vomitory” at a stadium.

View attachment 16320

Well that makes sense for larger buildings and multi-families. But how about a single family home? Wouldn't make sense to put a rated corridor through your living room. Especially with a house that only has a 950 sf footprint.
But thinking about it this way, you are able to go through an interior space to get to the public right of way.

 

[Yikes]

I noticed that New Jersey deleted many of exceptions in the model IBC. Out here in CA, if you had 2 hour walls and could make the house qualify as Type 3A and could sprinkler it, you wouldn’t need EEROs.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Well - the yard is directly outside the EERO. But the access to the public way is the issue.

but the exception in the IRC reads: "A yard shall not be required to open directly into a public way where the yard opens to an unobstructed path from the yard to the public way"
Could the "unobstructed path" from the yard to the Public Right of Way go back through the interior space of the house? or does it have to lead directly to a street on the exterior which would be impossible for interior lots with no side yard or without easements.

The IBC doesn't have that exception, however there is an exception in section 1028.5 Exit Discharge - Access to a public way:
Where access to a public way cannot be provided, a safe dispersal area shall be provided where all of the following are met:
1. The area shall be of a size to accommodate not less than 5 square feet for each person.
2. The area shall be located on the same lot not less than 50 feet away from the building requiring egress
3. The area shall be permanently maintained and identified as a safe dispersal area
4. The area shall be provided with a safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building

We can meet all of those except we are only 30' away since it is a small lot.

The reason a dispersal area has to be a minimum of 50 feet away from the building is heat. Have you ever stood 30 feet from a building that's fully engulfed in flame?

As for escaping the rear yard back through the lower story of the residence -- what if people lock their doors at night? Most people don't sleep with a key to the back door in a pocket of their pajamas -- if they wear pajamas. And what if the fire started on the lower floor?

I understand that you're looking for a way to justify something under the code. I don't it can be justified.

 

[cdstudio]

The reason a dispersal area has to be a minimum of 50 feet away from the building is heat. Have you ever stood 30 feet from a building that's fully engulfed in flame?

As for escaping the rear yard back through the lower story of the residence -- what if people lock their doors at night? Most people don't sleep with a key to the back door in a pocket of their pajamas -- if they wear pajamas. And what if the fire started on the lower floor?

I understand that you're looking for a way to justify something under the code. I don't it can be justified.

I am really just trying to understand the intent and purpose of the code so I can have an informed discussion with the official and we can find the best way to proceed. I learn a lot from this forum.

I am the architect for 2 of these townhouses which are adjacent to each other and have the same building envelope and rear elevation. One family wanted to add a family room and the other family needed another bedroom since they have 1 more kid. They were permitted together and reviewed by the same official. The family room one received its permits, the bedroom one got the EERO/public ROW comment. I (and the official) have to be able to explain and justify to both my clients why one has to spend more for a sprinkler system or that the other is not less safe and it is ok if they fall asleep on the couch. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it is what it is I guess. But it may come off to my clients as being punitive to people with more kids.

 

[cdstudio]

I noticed that New Jersey deleted many of exceptions in the model IBC. Out here in CA, if you had 2 hour walls and could make the house qualify as Type 3A and could sprinkler it, you wouldn’t need EEROs.

View attachment 16321

The Uniform Construction Code in NJ has a similar exception for EERO and sprinker systems.
"New window openings in sleeping rooms shall not be required to meet these requirements in buildings where the sleeping room is provided with a door to a corridor having access to two remote exits or in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system"

 

[Sifu]

I think the code is the justification. Sleeping rooms require an EERO, family rooms don't. One can argue all day about where someone "could" sleep, but a designated bedroom will always make the list. I would suggest it's not punitive to provide an emergency escape out of a sleeping room, especially for a kid. The way I read the OP the rear yard is landlocked. If it were big enough the BO might entertain a safe dispersal area for an escapee, but fire personnel access would still be an issue.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I think the code is the justification. Sleeping rooms require an EERO, family rooms don't. One can argue all day about where someone "could" sleep, but a designated bedroom will always make the list. I would suggest it's not punitive to provide an emergency escape out of a sleeping room, especially for a kid. The way I read the OP the rear yard is landlocked. If it were big enough the BO might entertain a safe dispersal area for an escapee, but fire personnel access would still be an issue.

We are required to take a specified number of hours of in-service training every year to maintain our licenses. Fire marshals and building officials are allowed to take up to half their required hours as cross-training in classes for the other license.

Several years ago, I attended a FM class on fire scene investigation. One of the case studies was a fire on the second story of an older multi-family residence. The attic had been illegally converted into an additional dwelling unit. No EERO in any room on the attic level. The resident of the attic apartment died. The building owner, who converted the attic illegally and lied to investigators that it was like that when he bought the place, went to prison.

EEROs are required for sleeping rooms. They are not required for family rooms, dining rooms, dens, or living rooms. End of story. That's the answer to why one application was approved and the other was denied. If you want to dispute the fairness of that -- join the ICC, submit a code change proposal, and go to the annual meeting and defend the proposal.

 

[Yikes]

I (and the official) have to be able to explain and justify to both my clients why one has to spend more for a sprinkler system or that the other is not less safe and it is ok if they fall asleep on the couch.

The code is based on the likely use of a room or space. A bedroom is assumed to be more likely used for sleeping than a family room.

An analogy: at some point, a family may have a big party at their property, maybe more than 50 people attending a birthday, wedding or funeral reception. But we don't make people change their homes to meet "A" assembly occupancy code requirements for that occasional event. On the other hand, if we want the official certificate of occupancy to indicate that home is specifically approved for assembly use, then yes they have to accept the increased safety requirements that come along with the increased property value for the more intensive use.

Of course there is nothing in the code that prohibits someone from falling asleep in a family room, living room, or anywhere else in the house. But once you've identified that the primary use of a bedroom is for sleeping, then you have the additional EERO safety requirements that come with it. Sleeping has historically been considered to be a more hazardous use in a home. Sleepy people are more groggy / less alert when a fire breaks out. They may take longer than an awake person to sense a fire. Heck, they may be smoking in bed, which in previous generations was a major cause of home fires.

The homeowner is also free to pursue the following options:
- Call it something other than a bedroom or sleeping room. The homeowner will lose out on the real estate value associated with calling it a bedroom.
- Remove the door to the bedroom so that it is now atmospherically connected to, and part of, a larger space in the house that has its own door or EERO.

 

[BuildingOfficial89]

The code is based on the likely use of a room or space. A bedroom is assumed to be more likely used for sleeping than a family room.

An analogy: at some point, a family may have a big party at their property, maybe more than 50 people attending a birthday, wedding or funeral reception. But we don't make people change their homes to meet "A" assembly occupancy code requirements for that occasional event. On the other hand, if we want the official certificate of occupancy to indicate that home is specifically approved for assembly use, then yes they have to accept the increased safety requirements that come along with the increased property value for the more intensive use.

Of course there is nothing in the code that prohibits someone from falling asleep in a family room, living room, or anywhere else in the house. But once you've identified that the primary use of a bedroom is for sleeping, then you have the additional EERO safety requirements that come with it. Sleeping has historically been considered to be a more hazardous use in a home. Sleepy people are more groggy / less alert when a fire breaks out. They may take longer than an awake person to sense a fire. Heck, they may be smoking in bed, which in previous generations was a major cause of home fires.

The homeowner is also free to pursue the following options:
- Call it something other than a bedroom or sleeping room. The homeowner will lose out on the real estate value associated with calling it a bedroom.
- Remove the door to the bedroom so that it is now atmospherically connected to, and part of, a larger space in the house that has its own door or EERO.

I had a new SFR where the egress window was too high off the floor (conflict with an intersecting roofline), so the builder thought "what if we call it an office?" I said no, put a compliant window on the adjacent wall. These people might use it as an office/sewing/gaming/yoga room, but the next owners might sleep in there. Sleeping rooms do not always have a closet, but when they do, it's hard to see them as anything other than a bedroom. Family rooms, rec rooms, living rooms, etc. are OK without an EERO.

One thing I really dislike is the real estate ads that specify "nonconforming bedroom".

 

[Yikes]

I had a new SFR where the egress window was too high off the floor (conflict with an intersecting roofline), so the builder thought "what if we call it an office?" I said no, put a compliant window on the adjacent wall. These people might use it as an office/sewing/gaming/yoga room, but the next owners might sleep in there. Sleeping rooms do not always have a closet, but when they do, it's hard to see them as anything other than a bedroom. Family rooms, rec rooms, living rooms, etc. are OK without an EERO.

One thing I really dislike is the real estate ads that specify "nonconforming bedroom".

It is totally legitimate to call it an office or yoga room, they just lose out on the financial incentive (e.g. it's now a 2 bed/ 2 bath house instead of a 3 bed / 2 bath house).

I agree that calling it a nonconforming bedroom is wrong, just like calling a garage a nonconforming bedroom. It etiher legally meets the requirements and gets called a bedroom, or it doesn't.

Prescriptive codes are a type of "bright-line rule"; the idea is to make it simple and dumb enough that it doesn't take a alot of expensive expertise to adjudicate every window on a building. Either it meets applicable code requirements and gets called a bedroom, or it doesn't.

However, bright line rules don't allow for a lot of nuance, and can seem unfair to the outside observer. If my house was built prior to 1964, there were no EERO requirements in the code, and almost any room could be a bedroom. Build that same house under the 1964 UBC two years later, and only rooms with EEROs can be bedrooms.

 

[Sifu]

I had a new SFR where the egress window was too high off the floor (conflict with an intersecting roofline), so the builder thought "what if we call it an office?" I said no, put a compliant window on the adjacent wall. These people might use it as an office/sewing/gaming/yoga room, but the next owners might sleep in there. Sleeping rooms do not always have a closet, but when they do, it's hard to see them as anything other than a bedroom. Family rooms, rec rooms, living rooms, etc. are OK without an EERO.

One thing I really dislike is the real estate ads that specify "nonconforming bedroom".

That is a slippery slope IMHO. If an AHJ wants to amend the code with a definition of a sleeping room that is one thing, but to say a room could be used for sleeping is another. In my work several AHJ's have done just that, otherwise if the construction documents call it an office it is an office.

Throughout my career this has been an issue. As a builder nearly all my single family houses had bonus rooms. Some had bathrooms. One AHJ tried to go down the EERO path with me, which I took up with the BO and our code books. They said it could be used for sleeping, and I said so could the kitchen. They relented. As a BO I do not assign use to a room, but they must. I often get plans without room labels, which they then must resubmit.

This from the 2006 IRC Q&A:


Right now I am in my office. It is a room, with a closet, a door out the back of the room to a rear hall, and a double door to the foyer. I could sleep in it but it is not a sleeping room. It is an office. (I just bought it, it was advertised with the number of actual bedrooms, not including the office, so kudos to them.)

To be frank, I have never seen a real estate transaction get bogged down by advertising a non-compliant sleeping room as a sleeping room even though I have warned people about the possibility for years. In my last house, there was a giant sleeping room in the basement, without an EERO, so I added one when I bought it. FWIW the basement was permitted and approved that way, but I don't know if they called it a sleeping room are something else. Whatever it was, I INTENDED for it to be a sleeping room, so I fixed it. It was marketed as a bedroom. When I sold the house I asked the realtor about it. She said she couldn't recall any transaction question it. Personally, I would like to see some better scrutiny, but in my experience I haven't.