• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

egress window at bedroom?

tmurray said:
Not for the fireman on a ladder outside the window trying to get in to haul an unconscious person out of that bedroom.
Click to expand...
Yes, and like the ladder, there is equipment on the truck for dealing with a fencepost.
 
mtlogcabin said:
All that equipment takes precious time to use when seconds count
Click to expand...
A person is more likely to die because a house is two stories (by falling down the stairs) than because there is a fence post in front of an EERO. Of course they are far more likely to commit suicide with a gun than from both of them combined.

A code official's response should be proportional to the actual risk entailed.

To the building's occupants that is...not to the code official's ego.
 
brudgers said:
To the building's occupants that is...not to the code official's ego.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing your are really so recalcitrant that you honestly believe that requesting the removal of a fence post from directly in front of a required EERO has anything to do with a code officials ego.

FYI

re·cal·ci·trant/riˈkalsətrənt/

Adjective: Having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority.

Noun: A person with such an attitude.

Synonyms: insubordinate - contumacious - refractory - disobedient
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
I have a hard time believing your are really so recalcitrant that you honestly believe that requesting the removal of a fence post from directly in front of a required EERO has anything to do with a code officials ego. FYI re·cal·ci·trant/riˈkalsətrənt/ Adjective: Having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority. Noun: A person with such an attitude. Synonyms: insubordinate - contumacious - refractory - disobedient
Click to expand...
I believe the concern is disproportionate to the risk. And that the code's silence on the matter reflects that fact.
 
By the way, I think a rocket launcher will take out impact resistant glass. New equipment for the fire truck. Quicker than a saw.
 
brudgers said:
I believe the concern is disproportionate to the risk. And that the code's silence on the matter reflects that fact.
Click to expand...
...and while I agree that the code is silent, however, it is not without context, and therefore respectfully disagree with your belief in that the silence in one part of the code should not negate the functionality of a specific requirement elsewhere in the code. Again I reference Section 104.1, specifically the last sentence, "Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code."
 
Aside form all the reteric being spewed here, the bottom line is that the code requires Emergency Rescue and Escape Openings. Section R310.1.

Minimum clear opening size must not be less than 20" in width / 24" in hieght / not mnore than 44" above the floor and in most cases provide a minimum clear opening size of not less than 5.7 square feet.

It is also quite clear that the openings are required to provide a direct access to public ways or yards. If a post is in the way, it cannot be considered direct access.

When obstructions are placed between the rescue and escape window and the yard or public way (such as bulkheads or situations that could potentially impeed escape and rescue such as below grade areas requiring the use of window wells) the code is quite specific that there must be no less than 36" clear outside the window.

Logic would dictate that the writers of the code would view any obstruction in a like manner. If any obstruction has the potential to block emergency egress, it should not be permitted less than 36" from the window.

Obviously we have little imput or recourse if these things are done after final inspection. But it is not prudent to accept improper code compliant items while we are still involved in the process.
 
Big Mac said:
Aside form all the reteric being spewed here, the bottom line is that the code requires Emergency Rescue and Escape Openings. Section R310.1. Minimum clear opening size must not be less than 20" in width / 24" in hieght / not mnore than 44" above the floor and in most cases provide a minimum clear opening size of not less than 5.7 square feet. It is also quite clear that the openings are required to provide a direct access to public ways or yards. If a post is in the way, it cannot be considered direct access. When obstructions are placed between the rescue and escape window and the yard or public way (such as bulkheads or situations that could potentially impeed escape and rescue such as below grade areas requiring the use of window wells) the code is quite specific that there must be no less than 36" clear outside the window. Logic would dictate that the writers of the code would view any obstruction in a like manner. If any obstruction has the potential to block emergency egress, it should not be permitted less than 36" from the window. Obviously we have little imput or recourse if these things are done after final inspection. But it is not prudent to accept improper code compliant items while we are still involved in the process.
Click to expand...
So you would fail it if the EERO opened up onto a small area behind a padlocked gate? Or into the screened enclosure around a swimming pool?

Or a second floor balcony?
 
brudgers said:
So you would fail it if the EERO opened up onto a small area behind a padlocked gate? Or into the screened enclosure around a swimming pool?

Or a second floor balcony?
Click to expand...
As Big Mac also stated, if it does not open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way....then yes, I would deny it.

Thanks for your efforts brudgers, however I simply can not understand your position, whether it is I am just not smart enough, or I lack the desire, I am not on your side of the fence on this matter.
 
Yes Brudgers if there was not at least 3' distance perpendicular to the window on the outside of the window, I would not approve it. The occupants must be provided with the opportunity to escape from a burning building. I didn't say so, the code says so. This is not really as complicated as you are trying to make it.
 
How about running a ledger for a deck across the window? Fire guys can always cut that away with their chainsaws! :confused:

The EERO needs to have the required clearances at the final inspection.
 
Big Mac said:
Yes Brudgers if there was not at least 3' distance perpendicular to the window on the outside of the window, I would not approve it. The occupants must be provided with the opportunity to escape from a burning building. I didn't say so, the code says so. This is not really as complicated as you are trying to make it.
Click to expand...
If it's in a basement, you are correct. Otherwise the code is silent on the matter.
 
fatboy said:
How about running a ledger for a deck across the window? Fire guys can always cut that away with their chainsaws! :confused: The EERO needs to have the required clearances at the final inspection.
Click to expand...
If it is in a basement, there are required clearances. If it ain't, there ain't.
 
brudgers said:
If it is in a basement, there are required clearances.
Click to expand...
But there in lies the rub...following the language in it's literal application, there is no code language that restricts a post or ledger in that window well space either. Only the ladder and steps are restricted as to how far they can encroach. It is as poorly written a section of code as one will find in the IRC.
 
So, my stair stringer, or landing ledger from my second story deck can run across the outside of my first story egress window?

EDIT: Papio beat me to the post, sorry I think the intent is pretty clear. Take it to the BOA. And no, I don't think that is an abuse of power, or making anyone dance.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
But there in lies the rub...following the language in it's literal application, there is no code language that restricts a post or ledger in that window well space either. Only the ladder and steps are restricted as to how far they can encroach. It is as poorly written a section of code as one will find in the IRC.
Click to expand...
Well if there is a post or ledger in the window well, then you can certainly red tag it. If there is construction regulated by the code above grade, you are certainly within your scope to regulate the construction.

But shrubbery is another matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top