• 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.

New Window in Old House & EERO

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,723
Location
Not where I really want to be
An existing home is getting a window replaced. None of the existing windows meet the EERO requirement. The window they are going to replace is one of two windows, and this one faces the front of the house. This is in a bedroom. The contractor removed the window, opened the walls, and made structural changes to fit the larger window into the newly framed opening with a new header and framing. Let's just assume this requires a permit. Answering this by telling us that you would not need a permit in your state is a waste of an answer.

Does this new window have to meet the EERO sizing requirements?
 
I think that by enlarging the opening, the contractor made it subject to EERO requirements. From the IRC:

[RB] REPAIR. The reconstruction, replacement or renewal
of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance
or to correct damage.
Click to expand...

Ordinarily, I would regard replacing just one windows as a "repair," and allow it to conform to whatever code was (or wasn't) in effect at the time of original construction. But then you threw in, "The contractor removed the window, opened the walls, and made structural changes to fit the larger window into the newly framed opening with a new header and framing."

[RB] ALTERATION. Any construction, retrofit or renovation
to an existing structure other than repair or addition that
requires a permit. Also, a change in a building, electrical, gas,
mechanical or plumbing system that involves an extension,
addition or change to the arrangement, type or purpose of the
original installation that requires a permit. For the definition
applicable in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6.
Click to expand...

And then I look at R310.5

R310.5 Replacement windows for emergency escape and
rescue openings. Replacement windows installed in buildings
meeting the scope of this code shall be exempt from
Sections R310.2 and R310.4.4, provided that the replacement
window meets the following conditions:
1. The replacement window is the manufacturer’s largest
standard size window that will fit within the
existing frame or existing rough opening. The
replacement window is of the same operating style as
the existing window or a style that provides for an
equal or greater window opening area than the existing
window.
2. The replacement window is not part of a change of
occupancy.
Click to expand...

So once the contractor enlarged the existing rough opening, he took "the existing frame or existing rough opening" out of play. With this exemption off the table, the replacement window now has to be a compliant EERO.

The 2021 IRC Commentary on section R310.5 is too lengthy to quote in fiull, but I think this portion summarizes my understanding of the section:

For example, while
some windows in sleeping rooms of older homes may
not provide the full clear opening that is required for
new construction or may have a sill height above 44
inches, they nonetheless may still provide a viable
emergency and escape rescue opening, which is the
primary intent of the code. Replacement of these windows
with the same type of operating window or other
type that can provide an equal or greater clear opening
than the existing window—even if they do not fully
meet the clear opening or sill height requirements—is
always an improvement in safety, especially when a
replacement opening can provide a larger clear opening
than the existing window. Such improvements in
safety should not be discouraged or prevented by
overly onerous requirements for replacement windows.
Click to expand...
 
The way I see a window repair or replacement that may not require a permit, is based on a few things.
  1. Repairs,
    1. Replacing an existing movable portion of the window including the glass with the same manufacture part or third party manufacture part of the same.
    2. Replacing the sash or window frame only and re-inserting the actual moveable portions of the window back into complete the repair.
    3. A repair IMO means the window returns to original.
  2. Replacement,
    1. Removing the existing damaged window with frame and installing the exact same make and model window back in it's place.
    2. Removing the existing damaged window with frame and installing the exact same style of window that fits in the already existing framed opening, with another manufactures model window back in it's place. (Double Hung to Double Hung or Casement to casement, not double hung to casement)
    3. Removing the movable portions from existing window and inserting a replacement window into the existing window frame and sash and not reducing the operable opening size required by the original building code.
    4. The following is something I see done and it fits a gray area in the codes wording.
      1. Removing the existing window from the existing framed opening
        1. Leaving the rough opening width and header in place
        2. Cut the opening taller by removing the height of the bottom of the rough opening only
        3. Flashing and installing a taller window of the same type
    5. Removing the existing damaged window with frame and installing another model window back in it's place, that has a larger opening clearance and function style that complies with the original code.
As to your specific question, the minute they changed the existing rough opening by making it wider and changing out the existing header, IMO they triggered requiring the permit.

Once the permit was required and they are now inserting a larger window, the code of current enforcement should kick-in for as "YC" noted the work does not fit within the existing frame or rough opening, which was the trigger point per code.
 
In California, no EERO enlargement is required. Under certain conditions, it can even become smaller than existing.
The state modified the Existing building code to exempt replacement windows from complying with current code. California really wanted to see people save on their energy bills, and noticed that people were hesitating due to the cost of reframing openings

CEBC 505.3 Replacement Window Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings
Where windows are required to provide emergency escape and rescue openings in Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies and one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses regulated by the California Residential Code, replacement windows shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 1031.3 of the California Building Code and Section R310.2 of the California Residential Code, provided that the replacement window meets the following conditions:

The replacement window is the manufacturer's largest standard size window that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening.
The replacement window shall be permitted to be of the same operating style as the existing window or a style that provides for an equal or greater window opening area than the existing window.
Where the replacement of the window is part of a change of occupancy, it shall comply with Section 1011.5.6.
 
Yikes said:
In California, no EERO enlargement is required. Under certain conditions, it can even become smaller than existing.
The state modified the Existing building code to exempt replacement windows from complying with current code. California really wanted to see people save on their energy bills, and noticed that people were hesitating due to the cost of reframing openings

CEBC 505.3 Replacement Window Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings
Where windows are required to provide emergency escape and rescue openings in Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies and one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses regulated by the California Residential Code, replacement windows shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 1031.3 of the California Building Code and Section R310.2 of the California Residential Code, provided that the replacement window meets the following conditions:

The replacement window is the manufacturer's largest standard size window that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening.
The replacement window shall be permitted to be of the same operating style as the existing window or a style that provides for an equal or greater window opening area than the existing window.
Where the replacement of the window is part of a change of occupancy, it shall comply with Section 1011.5.6.
Click to expand...
Remember, this post was about reframing for a larger window but not being required for it to be EERO sized.
 
On the Canadian side, typically even if there was no structural modification, the window replacement would typically trigger mandatory egress sizing. The only exception is when it is a financial hardship. Most officials will allow windows in concrete to remain below egress, but I've never heard of an official permitting one to remain in a framed wall.
 
So here is what is going on. I have a BCO that is digging their heels in on this one and pointing to this state statute which is listed under applicability. Section 403 replaces Chapter 1 of the IRC/IBC:

(3) The legal occupancy of a structure existing on April 9, 2004, may continue without change except where the Uniform Construction Code provides otherwise.

So based on 403.1(d)(3) above, he is stating that replacing a window in a bedroom to make it larger and making structural changes does not trigger the minimum size requirement for EERO because of this section, even though they are making a structural change to an EERO component. This is, of course, assuming that none of the windows in the existing home are of EERO size.

403.1 is for Scope
403.1(d) is for Prior Permits & Construction
 
tmurray said:
On the Canadian side, typically even if there was no structural modification, the window replacement would typically trigger mandatory egress sizing. The only exception is when it is a financial hardship. Most officials will allow windows in concrete to remain below egress, but I've never heard of an official permitting one to remain in a framed wall.
Click to expand...
Because you guys have common sense based on the intent of the code.
 
jar546 said:
So here is what is going on. I have a BCO that is digging their heels in on this one and pointing to this state statute which is listed under applicability. Section 403 replaces Chapter 1 of the IRC/IBC:

(3) The legal occupancy of a structure existing on April 9, 2004, may continue without change except where the Uniform Construction Code provides otherwise.

So based on 403.1(d)(3) above, he is stating that replacing a window in a bedroom to make it larger and making structural changes does not trigger the minimum size requirement for EERO because of this section, even though they are making a structural change to an EERO component. This is, of course, assuming that none of the windows in the existing home are of EERO size.

403.1 is for Scope
403.1(d) is for Prior Permits & Construction
Click to expand...
That is a lot like IEBC language, but IEBC is smart enough to say new work meets new also....

503.1​

Alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the International Building Code for new construction. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is not less complying with the provisions of the International Building Code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration.

Sections like this do fight themselves, but hopefully common sense prevails...
 
As @Yikes stated there are provisions in the CEBC that make certain allowances. In the administrative sections, the CEBC allows the user to design/build per the CEBC or CRC, but not both. Most designers don't know about the existing building code provisions, so they design per CRC. In that case, no exceptions, EERO's are required.
 
Joe.B said:
As @Yikes stated there are provisions in the CEBC that make certain allowances. In the administrative sections, the CEBC allows the user to design/build per the CEBC or CRC, but not both. Most designers don't know about the existing building code provisions, so they design per CRC. In that case, no exceptions, EERO's are required.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that in the CEBC? I see in 1.1.7.3.1 that it says you can use either CBC or CRC, but not both. I couldn't find that limitation for CEBC. (I always have difficulty parsing Chapter 1 applicability.)
1.1.7.3.1 Detached one- and two-family dwellings. Detached one- and two-family dwellings, lodging houses, live/work. units, townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory structures, may be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Residential Code or the California Building Code, but not both, unless the proposed structure(s) or element(s) exceed the design limitations established in the California Residential Code, and the code user is specifically directed by the California Residential Code to use the California Building Code.
Click to expand...
 
The crux of the issue is whether there is a new window or a replacement window. It seems to me that there is a wall replacement that happens to include a new window. But you say, wait a minute, there was a window there previously. Yes there was, and with the new wall that window could just as well be eliminated, So now what do you think of the window in question?

It is in a bedroom wall. There is no EERO provided for that bedroom. Does the code exempt the window based on it being a replacement even though the wall is new to the extent that changes were made to accommodate a larger window. What if the second floor was burned off the building? Would the bedrooms require an EERO?

If for any reason, the framing is altered for a window, there is no available exception to an EERO.
 
danSAA said:
Where does it say that in the CEBC? I see in 1.1.7.3.1 that it says you can use either CBC or CRC, but not both. I couldn't find that limitation for CEBC. (I always have difficulty parsing Chapter 1 applicability.)
Click to expand...
[A] 101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to and relocation of existing buildings.
Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall comply with this code or the California Residential Code.
 
It is not a "replacement" window. Neither the frame or rough opening exist as before the window existing was removed
2018IRC
R310.2.5 Replacement windows.
Replacement windows installed in buildings meeting the scope of this code shall be exempt from the maximum sill height requirements of Section R310.2.2 and the requirements of Section R310.2.1, provided that the replacement window meets the following conditions:

1. The replacement window is the manufacturer's largest standard size window that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening. The replacement window is of the same operating style as the existing window or a style that provides for an equal or greater window opening area than the existing window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top