• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Handrails & Non-conforming landscape staircase

tbz

tbz

REGISTERED
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
1,360
Location
PA/NJ - Borderlands
Ok,

Client requested handrails for his landscape stairs.

The stairs are in the yard and lead from the driveway to the rear of the house are within the fencing of the pool enclosure.

There is another exit on the other side of the yard that leads right from the yard in to the front yard all grass.

This landscape set of stairs are pre-existing there before the client added the pool in the back yard.

All we did was add the handrails.

Inspector is stating tread and riser are non-compliant and that guards are needed. Well for a fact the guards are not required.

But, imn my interp the stairs are not within the scope of work and are not part of the house nor are they any part of the IRC-2009 NJ.

How do you all see this, ask questions if I did not cover anything.

Thanks Tom

nchrop.jpg
 
Normally I would say those aren't stairs, but we all know where that will get the thread. Landscaping is not considered within the scope of the IRC in this AHJ. We don't even require handrails. Retaining walls on commercial properties are required to provide guards per our zoning regulations, but they are not regulated to the specification of the IRC or IBC. Attached accessory structures (e.g., decks) which are more than 30 inches above the adjacent grade line are required to provide guards in accordance with the IRC, and when stairs are provided, 4 or more risers require guards, hand rails and compliant rise and run.
 
if not a part of the exiting system it doesn't need to comply with squat! it is a landscape feature, veritable art work.
 
You had to get a permit and inspection for the handrail installation?

We have 1,000's of examples like this and no handrails installed.

As long as the steps do not provide access or egress from a residence or accessory structure then I believe they are not regulated by the code.

Providing the handrails are 1,000% better than no handrails. I bet that rock is real slippery when wet or frosty.
 
Tell 'em to pound sand, not part of the IRC structure. Just happened to be a pile of rocks
that someone wanted a handrail to help climb on.
 
+ - + -

tbz,

Agree with the other esteemed Forum contributors & members,
no permit required for the decorative iron railing, "unless",
...the AHJ has adopted something in their own ordinances.

FWIW, in the pic., ...those steps look like a fall hazard
waiting to happen.

- + - +
 
If the AHJ is being that much of a p.i.a., call him/her out. Ask them to show it to you in black and white. We all know the hot spot that will put them in.
 
2006 IRC Q&A book states that the moe ends where the occupant walks out the front door, down the steps and onto the landing at grade level. If your steps don't fit in that then they don't have a step to stand on.
 
Thanks everyone,

We did not get a permit for these handrails because we don't consider them part of the AHJ scope of work.

The stairs also failed for treads and riser dimensions, not even close if they were required to meet a code requirement.

we got the call from the home owner that they failed inspection for no balusters per R312, but that doen't make any sense.

I beleive the CLIENT just installed a new pool in the back yard, so when the inspector came to do their part on the pool up above they walked up from the driveway down below via this set of steps.

They could have walked up in front of the house and around to the other sides gate and never encountered these steps.

I don't believe the inspector was trying to do anything more than their job, but missed interped his or hers scope of authority in that landscaping is not regrulated.

I beleive once confronted they will verify and remember and provide the CO for the acctual work done regrulated by the building department.

I just wanted to make sure I was not loosing it and missed something.

See you all at the hearings in Dallas

Thanks again

Tom Z
 
Ask them for the specific code section. Likely they will cite "R311" or "R312". These are titled "means of egress". Ask him for a copy of the definition of means of egress.

These clearly don't apply to the landscaping portion of a dwelling.

Here is another analogy I use, regading "guards" when required above elevated walking surfaces greater than 30" above grade. I have a 400 foot driveway from my house to the road. At one point, there is a huge culvert to allow a flow of water, basically a creek. It is more than 30 inches from the driveway to the bottom of grade at that point.

I walk from my house to the mailbox on a daily basis.

Would he make me put a guard rail in this location?

Very simliar.

Good luck.
 
Dude!?! How could he have missed the lacking:

Chairlift.jpg


Note to pool owners: This lift is removable and is therefore noncompliant.

Bill
 
KZQuixote said:
Nice Railings Tom. How could the inspector complain about your making an existing set of steps safer? Bill
Click to expand...
There are not enough bytes on the internet to answer that one fully.
 
I agree, these stairs are clearly a landscape element and not regulated by the code. In regards to balusters being required I would refer back to section R312.3 Opening limitations - required guards shall not have openings.....These guards are not required therfore do not have to comply with that section of the code.
 
Agree with the interpretations; the stairs are beyond the scope of the 2009 IRC (included in the NJ edition) according to the new definition:

STAIRWAY. One or more flights of stairs, either interior or exterior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another within or attached to a building, porch or deck.

Might do yourself and this inspector a favor to point him toward this forum.

Francis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone know how this ended up? We are seeing a very similar issue in PA. We are under the 2009 IRC version. They are citing 311.7.4.1 and 311.7.4.2 and 312.1 .. Did the above get successfully resolved? If so, how? Thanks!!
 
Wow! What a thread.
1. This is a residential property, ADA does not apply.
2. Is there a safety fence between the pool and house?
3. Best practice: provide normal dimensions for rise and run of steps/stair
4. Best Practice: provide handrails
5. Consider risk management of trip and fall potential, The sharks are out there and waiting.
6. Contractors/Designers be sure and keep your E & O in force.
 
tbz said:
Ok,

Client requested handrails for his landscape stairs.

The stairs are in the yard and lead from the driveway to the rear of the house are within the fencing of the pool enclosure.

There is another exit on the other side of the yard that leads right from the yard in to the front yard all grass.

This landscape set of stairs are pre-existing there before the client added the pool in the back yard.

All we did was add the handrails.

Inspector is stating tread and riser are non-compliant and that guards are needed. Well for a fact the guards are not required.

But, imn my interp the stairs are not within the scope of work and are not part of the house nor are they any part of the IRC-2009 NJ.

How do you all see this, ask questions if I did not cover anything.

Thanks Tom

nchrop.jpg
Click to expand...
 
What if this stair was on a commercial site connecting the public sidewalk to the main courtyard on which a building sits? The courtyard has one accessible POT to the public sidewalk. If you do T.I. work in the building would a second accessible POT now be required in CA. ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top