• 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.

Overrulled by my Department Head (Zoning Administrator)

I need a clarification on the original post:

Yankee, you say they want to remove the original stair except for the landing. You did NOT say they want to REPLACE the removed stair with another, new stair.

Therefore, the "building the rest from scratch" work you mentioned would be just guradrails to close off the old stair; and perhaps some related additional supports.

Am I understanding this correctly?
 
Yikes said:
I need a clarification on the original post:Yankee, you say they want to remove the original stair except for the landing. You did NOT say they want to REPLACE the removed stair with another, new stair.

Therefore, the "building the rest from scratch" work you mentioned would be just guradrails to close off the old stair; and perhaps some related additional supports.

Am I understanding this correctly?
Click to expand...
The proposal is to keep the landing from the floor above and rebuild from scratch the rest of the stairway. They are proposing compliant risers, 10 1/2" treads, continuously graspable rail on ONE side alongside (inside of) a "traditional" post railing system, no railing on the other side (this is the only "existing" problem, there being windows on part of the railing run), and no handrail extensions at the bottom of the stairway. This proposal encroaches upon the patio three thread widths. If they encroached five tread widths including extensions), they would be able to make the stairway dimensionally compliant. Presently, the rise/run is 8 and 8 and no graspable rail.

All of this info is mute however, if it comes down to "Chapter 34" or "Chapter 10"
 
Yankee said:
why? send me a PM
Click to expand...
ADAAG 505.2 Where Handrails are Required. Handrails shall be provided on both sides of stairs and ramps

ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 505.2 Location. Handrails shall be provided on both sides of stairs and ramps.
 
OK. I get it...the only "new" part is the whole "flight" (why do I take such comfort in that term?) to be made anew.

1st question...what is wrong w/Chapt 10 and why was your ruling (as yet to be described BTW) over-ruled?

BTW2 I too have been over-ruled (not in the interest of compliance, mind you, but in the interest of ....(politics?).
 
jim baird said:
OK. I get it...the only "new" part is the whole "flight" (why do I take such comfort in that term?) to be made anew.1st question...what is wrong w/Chapt 10 and why was your ruling (as yet to be described BTW) over-ruled?

BTW2 I too have been over-ruled (not in the interest of compliance, mind you, but in the interest of ....(politics?).
Click to expand...
Yup, I think it's "new". He is hanging his hat on "replace in kind or better", which is zoning mentality, "it is a vast improvement", , , and it is. He will be signing the app, and that's just the way it goes sometimes.Thanks everyone, sometimes I wonder if I hold the line too hard. But I don't see a compliant approvable option with this.
 
New, Chapter 10, and precisely why zoning administrators have no business being granted authority over building code enforcement. They should be relegated to what they are trained in - counting bushes and arguing over the color of stucco.
 
mark handler said:
YankeeExpress your official/professional Opinion, and Pick your battles......
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more Mark. I have been in your position, and I make my informed case for, or against, and then let the powers that be make their decisions based on the information I have provided them. They don't always agree with, and more times than not a compromise that does not affect life safety is reached, however sometimes politics does win out.

In this case, I would say that the zoning mentality you speak of is clearly represented in Chapter 34, and the IEBC. All semantics aside, make your position known, and if possible have the higher ups sign off on their administrative justification.
 
So when the trip and fall case hits the court I am sure the zoning administrators testimony about how it was a vast improvement will weigh heavily with the jury and the city will no doubt be dismissed as a defendant in the case.

Document and don't sign anything that may indicate approval or passing an inspection with regards to the work that will be done on the stairs and don't forget to take copies home to your personal files.
 
permitguy said:
New, Chapter 10, and precisely why zoning administrators have no business being granted authority over building code enforcement. They should be relegated to what they are trained in - counting bushes and arguing over the color of stucco.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but I do for the most part admire my department head for any number of reasons, certainly planning and zoning is integral to the quality of life for more reasons than the color of stucco (we don't regulate color here, as long as it's white, and don't have stucco either! : )
 
So when the trip and fall case hits the court I am sure the zoning administrators testimony about how it was a vast improvement will weigh heavily with the jury and the city will no doubt be dismissed as a defendant in the case.

Document and don't sign anything that may indicate approval or passing an inspection with regards to the work that will be done on the stairs and don't forget to take copies home to your personal files.

Best answer read so far. I do the same thing CYA.
 
Alot is going to depend on the administrative provisions of the jurisdiction that are almost always not standard code language.

For example in Virginia they would clearly be able to replace it with the same nonconforming dimensions and railings.

from 2009 VA Construction code--

"103.5 Reconstruction, alteration or repair. The following criteria is applicable to reconstruction, alteration or repair of

buildings or structures:

1. Any reconstruction, alteration or repair shall not adversely affect the performance of the building or structure, or

cause the building or structure to become unsafe or lower existing levels of health and safety.

2. Parts of the building or structure not being reconstructed, altered or repaired shall not be required to comply with

the requirements of this code applicable to newly constructed buildings or structures.

3. The installation of material or equipment, or both, that is neither required nor prohibited shall only be required to

comply with the provisions of this code relating to the safe installation of such material or equipment.

4. Material or equipment, or both, may be replaced in the same location with material or equipment of a similar kind

or capacity.

Exceptions:

1. This section shall not be construed to permit noncompliance with any applicable flood load or flood-resistant

construction requirements of this code.

2. Reconstructed decks, balconies, porches and similar structures located 30 inches (762 mm) or more above

grade shall meet the current code provisions for structural loading capacity, connections and structural

attachment. This requirement excludes the configuration and height of handrails and guardrails."
 
Yankee said:
Yup, I think it's "new". He is hanging his hat on "replace in kind or better", which is zoning mentality, "it is a vast improvement", , , and it is. He will be signing the app, and that's just the way it goes sometimes.Thanks everyone, sometimes I wonder if I hold the line too hard. But I don't see a compliant approvable option with this.
Click to expand...
Having 7.75 risers and 10.5" treads, while obviously not code compliant with commercial codes, it is still a compliant standard for stairs in residential applications, and would lead me to believe, that it would not be a major public safety hazard. I also believe you are stating that it is actually an improvement over the existing stair.

Are there also issues with the width of the stair, which are resulting in only one handrail, or is this more of an aesthetic issue? Either way, I think it is important you hold the line for your Department, especially if you respect your Deptartment Head as you say. You are an important asset for them to measure the line, and know just how far and when they are crossing it.

I also understand, and share, your frustrations when it is a situation where compliance is possible, just not preferred. I shared this thread with our Department (not the Head) to measure their responses, and received similar feedback. You are definitely not alone.
 
It's new and shall comply with what you have adopted. The only thing that is exempt is the landing that they aren't removing.
 
Either way, I think it is important you hold the line for your Department, especially if you respect your Deptartment Head as you say. You are an important asset for them to measure the line, and know just how far and when they are crossing it.
Click to expand...
Well said. Every inspector/plan reviewer should be able to respectfully disagree with the BO and have the opportunity to explain the code reasons why. A smart BO will listen to his/her staff and staff may not agree with the BO's decision but it is the BO's final decision that will be followed with no further discussions.
 
If the stairs are coming out, and there is no logical space restriction, Chapter 10 in my opinion, but Yankee, I feel your pain, been there, done that and have the t-shirt and scars to show for it. :)

Good luck.
 
Must be something in the air of recent days. It happened to us regarding a useless (unaccessible) hydrant and a planned addition to an existing industry. Everyone is sooooo worried about creating costs to building owners that they loose sight of customer service. This could have been an easy fix but oh well, just made copy of correspondence and moving on :)
 
Frank said:
Alot is going to depend on the administrative provisions of the jurisdiction that are almost always not standard code language.For example in Virginia they would clearly be able to replace it with the same nonconforming dimensions and railings.

from 2009 VA Construction code--

"103.5 Reconstruction . . . .

2. Reconstructed decks, balconies, porches and similar structures located 30 inches (762 mm) or more above

grade shall meet the current code provisions for structural loading capacity, connections and structural

attachment. This requirement excludes the configuration and height of handrails and guardrails."
Click to expand...
Well that "reconstruction" word sure would have made a difference to my reading of the code requirements!
 
Oh brudgers, do you really think that someone that is balking about building new compliant stairs went through the time and expense of retaining an architect?
 
brudgers said:
What does the architect of record say about all this?
Click to expand...
Now that's an interesting question, as this proposal is required to be designed by a DP and I am waiting to see if he waives that requirement (I have told him this). Clearly it cannot be submitted by a DP as discussed : )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top