• 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.

NYC residence "convenience stair"

G

griffino

REGISTERED
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
17
Location
New York City
I have a client who lives in a 12 story building in NYC. They purchased the unit below theirs and want to cut a hole and combine the two units with a new stair. We will need to comply with the 1968 Building Code of the City of New York https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/building_code/1968_building_code_v1.pdf.

My question is whether this stair would need to comply with all the requirements of an Interior Stair under 27-375.

The definition of "Interior Stair" is "A stair within a building, that serves as a required exit". I do not believe this stair serves as a required exit, as we are not changing the means of egress from each individual floor.

I see another definition for an "Access Stair - A stair between two floors which does not serve as a required exit." This seems more applicable here, but I don't see access stair requirements outlined elsewhere in the code. I only find that they can be unenclosed and a Spiral Stair can be used as an Access Stair.

Thanks for the help and if anyone has questions please let me know.
 
Sounds like an access stair.

But, when are they going to update to a newer code?? 1968???

Seems like present code would apply?

Seems like high rise codes might kick in??

Seems like there may be a problem opening a floor in a high rise?


Seems like set down with the building Dept, before going to far down the avenue!!
 
cda said:
Sounds like an access stair.

But, when are they going to update to a newer code?? 1968???

Seems like present code would apply?

Seems like high rise codes might kick in??

Seems like there may be a problem opening a floor in a high rise?


Seems like set down with the building Dept, before going to far down the avenue!!
Click to expand...

In NYC you have the option to use the older code for certain aspects of older buildings. Means of Egress is one.
 
ICE said:
Does what you propose fit within the narrow definition of a Means of Egress?
Click to expand...

My argument is that the new stair is not part of a "Required Exit" and therefore is not part of the Means of Egress system. Therefore it wouldn't need to comply with what the 1968 code calls an "Interior Stairway". The 1968 code does not have a definition for "Means of Egress" but it does have this for "Exit"

EXIT.- A means of egress from the interior of a building to an open exterior space which is provided by the use of the following, either singly or in combination: exterior door openings, vertical exits, exit passageways, horizontal exits, interior stairs, exterior stairs, fire towers or fire escapes; but not including access stairs, aisles, corridor doors or corridors

Does that mean I can say its an "access stair"?
 
In fact, I'm required not to alter the means of egress by the DOB for the type of permit I'm applying for. I'm also seeing some guidance from the DOB saying you can have an "interior access stair" between apartments. So I think I'm on the right track. Would love if someone with experience here can confirm though!
 
From your research appears

access stair is approved by code,

Just check other provisions, since you are in a high rise.

Most present codes allow an opening between floors, with no added requirements.
 
Even if a "sub-standard" stair is permitted I would be scared to death to design one. The first time someone falls down the stair guess who they are going to come after. When the Attorney asks why you designed a "dangerous" stair are you going to reply, because I could? His next question is going to be didn't you know it was a "dangerous" stair based on current Codes and data? Tread lightly and be carful.

Ken
 
khsmith55 said:
Even if a "sub-standard" stair is permitted I would be scared to death to design one. The first time someone falls down the stair guess who they are going to come after. When the Attorney asks why you designed a "dangerous" stair are you going to reply, because I could? His next question is going to be didn't you know it was a "dangerous" stair based on current Codes and data? Tread lightly and be carful.

Ken
Click to expand...


So why is it dangerous ?
 
1968 code applies, its not a question

I understand I can be sued for any number of reasons. I would not tell a client they need an exit stair in their apartment if its common practice to provide a less stringent stair.
 
Because floor to floor height is more than 12' (its 12'-9") the stair would require an intermediate landing if its part of means of egress. Client just wants to know if they can get rid of the landing and make the stair 30" wide rather than 36".
 
I think you can call it an access stair, that might get you out of the rating, but the landings and other stair requirements might still apply...Not an NY guy...
 
griffino said:
Because floor to floor height is more than 12' (its 12'-9") the stair would require an intermediate landing if its part of means of egress. Client just wants to know if they can get rid of the landing and make the stair 30" wide rather than 36".
Click to expand...

NYC has many buildings that are still under the 1968 code when doing existing building renovations. Not sure why they don't push to the newer adoptions, but each building is designated to different codes based on the address and when built.

As a secondary non-MOE stair flight under the 1968 code, going to the 12'-9" adds 1 riser to the stair flight when you look at they now allow 147", or 12'-3" in the stair flights between risers.

however, I would strongly suggest staying with the 36" width over reduced 30" width, adding one riser is not that much of a change from the standard compared to reducing the width by 1/6th.

Just my thoughts on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top