Another public way egress question

[egressquestion]

Hi,

I own a building regulated by 1028.5 Access to a Public Way. The building is large enough that it requires two means of egress. The rear means of egress leads to a courtyard area which is connected to an alley-way on an adjacent property's lot. That alley-way leads to a public way. My first question is does this count as satisfying "The exit discharge shall provide a direct and unobstructed access to a public way" if occupants must travel over the adjacent lot to reach the public way?

Now my second question. The owner of the adjacent lot recently put up a chain-linked and pad-locked fence that now blocks access to the public way from my rear means of egress. I am therefore required to provide a safe dispersal area that satisfies all 4 of the exceptions to 1028.5. The 2nd requirement states "The area shall be located on the same lot not less than 50 feet (15 240 mm) away from the building requiring egress" There, given that my building takes up much of the lot area, is no area accessible from the rear egress that is BOTH outside of my building and on my lot that is not less than 50 feet from my building. However, if I include the courtyard areas in the rear of the adjacent lots, which are connected to the rear of my building, there is more than enough distance from my building to satisfy the exception. The only problem is it's not "on the same lot" as the code requires. Is my interpretation of this correct? Does this mean the means of egress in the rear of my building does not satisfy 1028.5?

Thank you so much!

 

[e hilton]

Hi,

I own a building regulated by 1028.5 Access to a Public Way. The building is large enough that it requires two means of egress. The rear means of egress leads to a courtyard area which is connected to an alley-way on an adjacent property's lot. That alley-way leads to a public way. My first question is does this count as satisfying "The exit discharge shall provide a direct and unobstructed access to a public way" if occupants must travel over the adjacent lot to reach the public way?

Now my second question. The owner of the adjacent lot recently put up a chain-linked and pad-locked fence that now blocks access to the public way from my rear means of egress. I am therefore required to provide a safe dispersal area that satisfies all 4 of the exceptions to 1028.5. The 2nd requirement states "The area shall be located on the same lot not less than 50 feet (15 240 mm) away from the building requiring egress" There, given that my building takes up much of the lot area, is no area accessible from the rear egress that is BOTH outside of my building and on my lot that is not less than 50 feet from my building. However, if I include the courtyard areas in the rear of the adjacent lots, which are connected to the rear of my building, there is more than enough distance from my building to satisfy the exception. The only problem is it's not "on the same lot" as the code requires. Is my interpretation of this correct? Does this mean the means of egress in the rear of my building does not satisfy 1028.5?

Thank you so much!

 

[e hilton]

However, if I include the courtyard areas in the rear of the adjacent lots, which are connected to the rear of my building,

Sorry, hit “post” too soon the first time.

Are those courtyard areas on the other side of the locked fence?

 

[egressquestion]

Hi. Thank you for responding. No those other courtyard areas are on the same side of the locked fence (contiguous to the courtyard in the rear of my building save for the invisible property lines). I've attached a drawing of the setup.

 

[bill1952]

Why locked fence across public alley? or am I missing something?

The alley behind the buildings is not a public way? I don't see how any of the buildings not on a corner have legal egress.

But I'd property lines are accurate and no easements, and thus no way to assure they stay available for egress, I don't think you have a rear MOE option. Worked on a building in Houston with same issue - no assurance there would be passage from rear - so created exit passage way to front. Pain in the butt with a narrow building.

 

[RLGA]

Honestly, I do not know how the building was permitted in the first place. When you mentioned “alley,” I thought an easement dedicated for such a purpose, and why wold someone block it off? What you described is not an alley, but a side yard of the adjacent property. If there was no easement for an alley or a recorded covenant to allow access across the adjacent property or properties, the city should not have issued a permit and should have required a second means of egress with access to a public way (which an actual alley would qualify as).

Without doing any internal renovations, the only solution is to get recorded covenants from those property owners to allow unrestricted access across their properties. This means they could not add fences, additions, etc. that would block passage to the public way. This may cost you some money as I doubt people would be willing to give up their rights to use their own property without some compensation.

 

[steveray]

When was your building built?