Front Entry ?

[TimNY]

3202.2.1 would allow the encroachment. Will the municipality allow it?

 

[tbz]

Jim,

You say railings to code, and no one has picked up on the word RAILINGS yet from my OP, the code does not require railings!

The building department wrote "railings to code" on the stamped sketch.

The code has a section for handrails (1012), guards (1013) and grab bars N/A here.

We all assume the handrails are the issue which they are, but here in lies my problem with this project.

Not so informed Pizza pioneer hires a mason to replace front entry steps to the building they recently rented from a landlord. Masons drawings are clearly non-compliant, for not only the top landing, door width, tread and riser and so on, but to boot the building department approves the non-compliant sketch without any notations or clarifications on the non-compliance and proceeds to write "Railings to code" on the drawing.

To add insult to injury the town also does not allow encroachment in to the sidewalk past the lot line, so handrails can not be made compliant for extensions per IBC chapter 10 (remember 34 deleted). The upper portion of the handrails need the door to move back and widened to become compliant, so basically how do you install handrails to code on a non-compliant landing and stairs?

You can't, so why would a plan reviewer/building department write such a thing on and then approve a sketch/drawing like this?

What ticks me off is when people starting a business hire someone to do a job and then that contractor, who does IRC work mainly, does not know better and submits documentation to the building department, both of them are suppose to know better and yet they leave the tenant holding the bag like this.

Mark,

The reason I limited the post to the NJ IBC chapter 10 was because accessibility requirements are more restrictive, thus if the site can't meet the basics the others are not worth talking about. Also I would of posted the question under Accessibility rather than here.

 

[mark handler]

Mark, The reason I limited the post to the NJ IBC chapter 10 was because accessibility requirements are more restrictive, thus if the site can't meet the basics the others are not worth talking about. Also I would of posted the question under Accessibility rather than here.

Tom

You cannot limit the requirement by post placement

And yes, you can design your rails to meet the basics

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

The upper portion of the handrails need the door to move back and widened to become compliant, so basically how do you install handrails to code on a non-compliant landing and stairs?You can't, so why would a plan reviewer/building department write such a thing on and then approve a sketch/drawing like this?

tbz, I hear your frustrations, and I agree, there is little to no reason why this should have been approved without Chapter 34 of the IBC, or some other alternative for existing buildings. If this permit were to be issued, under the specifics of Chapter 10 only, as you described, then yes, the door should be pushed back towards the interior of the building to accomodate both the landing and handrails. ADA issues of 'Technically Infeasability only arise when structural members would impede the compliance, and the owner of the building (not the tenant), is ultimately responsible for making financial provisions in order to provide compliance over time. In my mind, ADA is not an entirely moot issue, but yes, separate issue that could be addressed in the Accessibility Forum.

What ticks me off is when people starting a business hire someone to do a job and then that contractor, who does IRC work mainly, does not know better and submits documentation to the building department, both of them are suppose to know better and yet they leave the tenant holding the bag like this.

I would be careful here with who you assert is holding the bag. Yes there is plenty of blame to spread around, and as you say, in this case, the tenant is placed holding the heavy end of the bag. A frustration, doubled, when one considers how difficult it is to start up and maintain a small business.

However, this is not 1993, and the small business world is very aware that accessibility and building code compliance is an issue. There is more than enough literature available and I am sure (or at least I hope) that the leasing agreement stated the tenants obligations to comply with all local codes and obtain all required permits. Total ignorance in this day and age is not really acceptable anymore. In most cases, my experience has been, that non-compliance issues such as this stem from the ideology that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

It will be interesting to see if the AHJ, (residential) contractor/mason and tenant can work together to gain compliance, or if this will become the blame game. All are to blame, and all share responsibility.

Best of luck to you Tom. I think you are asking the right questions.

 

[mark handler]

It is difficult but not "Technically Infeasability" to have semi compliant rails.

 

[coloradocode]

The only real solution to this problem is to request a modification per Section 104.10, assuming NJ has not deleted that section as well. Because of the layout of the building and location of the public property, there is a practical difficulty in complying with the code. The building official has the authority to grant the modification as long as compliance with the code is impractical. You need to show that the new stairs are not more unsafe than the original ones. The frustrating part of this option is that building departments are hesitant to approve modifications because they think that they will be liable if someone falls and injures themselves. In this case, I'm not sure you have much of a choice. You need to try and make it as safe as you can and document the modification.