Retaining Wall Guard Requirement

[Jeff8737]

Please tell me if my logic and reasoning is correct:

The scope of the IRC code states it applies to the construction of "accessory structures"

Accessory structures are defined as "a structure that is accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling and that is located on the same lot"

And structure is defined as "that which is built or constructed" With all that in mind:

So if there's a 48 inch high retaining wall at the lot line between two properties, with a vertical drop onto concrete, am I correct to presume that a guard should be required? "Walking surface" is not defined within the code however, the common sense meaning (to me) is a surface that can be walked on; be it asphalt, lumber, grass, etc. And this particular surface would be walked on by landscapers, HVAC technicians, etc from time to time. As such, the risk of falling 4 feet onto concrete exists.

Have I missed anything? Many thanks!

 

[Msradell]

I certainly agree with your interpretation, except for cost I can absolutely see no reason not to install one even of code didn't require it.

 

[tbz]

Please tell me if my logic and reasoning is correct:

The scope of the IRC code states it applies to the construction of "accessory structures"

Accessory structures are defined as "a structure that is accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling and that is located on the same lot"

And structure is defined as "that which is built or constructed" With all that in mind:

So if there's a 48 inch high retaining wall at the lot line between two properties, with a vertical drop onto concrete, am I correct to presume that a guard should be required? "Walking surface" is not defined within the code however, the common sense meaning (to me) is a surface that can be walked on; be it asphalt, lumber, grass, etc. And this particular surface would be walked on by landscapers, HVAC technicians, etc from time to time. As such, the risk of falling 4 feet onto concrete exists.

Have I missed anything? Many thanks!

Well Jeff,

First off welcome to the forum.....

Next the USA is a very large area that has many different building codes adopted, hence 2000 - 2018 versions of the IRC alone, not to mention 2021, and many areas that don't even have or adoption any building codes, though those areas are being reduced.

Without knowing the state and jurisdiction, the AHJ - Authority Having Jurisdiction for the adopted model code to be enforced, your question becomes mute.

Depending on how the AHJ adopted and or modified the model code adoption, your assumption is more than likely not correct.

The IRC is based on the building structure not landscaping, though one might stretch the purpose like you are attempting, it is not the intent and one of the many reasons we have an IRC separate from the IBC.

Example: once you leave the building and are to grade, the IRC stops, so if you have a home that exists on to a front exterior landing, then down 3 steps to the walkway and then 15 feet across the yard to another set of steps, let's say 8, that go down to a driveway. The Model IRC only covers the landing and 3 steps without modification, not the lower 8 steps to the driveway, though many try to stretch that view, it does not.

Example Pic: Red arrow points to walkout to lawn area to the left



Let's look at another example, you buy a lot and build a home that has a natural rock fall at the end of the property that is 20ft, now that you built the home on the property, by your definition though the rock fall is existing and 100 feet away, the lawn runs right up to the edge. Because you installed the lawn which was not existing you created a walking surface between the two? I think not.

Unless the retaining wall is directly connected to the home, garage or patio that is attached to the home and the hardscape walking surface is within 36 of that drop, its out in the lawn and thus landscaping.

Just because you installed grass, does not mean you have a walking surface. And by definition not covered, the lawn mowers are on their own.

Regards - Tom

 

[steveray]

A "walking surface" is not typically grass or landscape...Trying to clarify this in 2024....

 

[Kearney.200]

I agree with the OP a guard would be required on a retaining wall that was installed on the property, it follows the intent of the code.
TBZ as to your statement ( devils advocate ) you would not require a guard or hand rail from a landing on a deck then?

 

[e hilton]

you would not require a guard or hand rail from a landing on a deck then?

A deck is definitely a walking surface. That’s the reason it is built. Grass is not a walking surface. How many places do you see signs “keep off the grass”?

 

[Jeff8737]

Without knowing the state and jurisdiction, the AHJ - Authority Having Jurisdiction for the adopted model code to be enforced, your question becomes mute.

Depending on how the AHJ adopted and or modified the model code adoption, your assumption is more than likely not correct.

I checked my state's code. It adopts the 2018 IRC, and there are no local amendments with regard to this topic. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me to say that the grass along the top of the wall is a walking surface. Unlike the example in your photo, all service people must walk on the grass to service an HVAC unit on the side of the house, along with fiber optic, landscape people, etc. If the intent of the guard requirement is to protect people from falling and being injured, how could a guard not be required for a 4 ft drop?

 

[Paul Sweet]

Plant briar bushes if there is space to get by them to service the equipment.

 

[BN4537]

Retaining Wall Drop-Off Fencing

Washington resident here... Per the IRC, as you exit the structure and get to grade, jurisdiction of the building code is done, that is unless you land on another structure (deck, pool apron, etc.).

www.thebuildingcodeforum.com

Check out this thread - this discussion comes up occasionally here. There is not a definitive answer, the IRC covers single family dwellings and their accessory structures. Is a retaining wall an accessory structure? I'm not sure.

As has been stated, grass is not typically considered to be a walking surface by most in the industry.

Unfortunately, the existence of a hazard does not automatically mean that there is a code section to address it. I would agree that there is a hazard, but I would not necessarily agree that it is within the scope of the codes I can legally enforce to address that hazard.

 

[e hilton]

I guess if you add a rail, that would give little boys a bit more height when they play Superman and jump off the edge.

 

[Sifu]

Jeff, good question, one that has been asked many times in many places. I hope steveray is right and they provide more definitive guidance, without which we are left trying to decide for ourselves. IMHO, a retaining wall in a landscape area would not require a guard. However, if a sidewalk or other designated walking surface was adjacent to it then it would. It comes down to intended use. Like Beniah said, there has not been a definitive answer, and I imagine even if there were, it would still be debatable based on intended use. This debate is occurring right now within my department. Our planning department wants to require them (not sure what they are basing that on) and the building department is not as quick to do so, we think a blanket requirement would certainly be over-kill. I think one would be justified to require or not require based on individual intended uses. If legitimate concerns exist about safety then you should require it, but if it is not an obvious walking surface I think you could be justified in not requiring it. You are applying reason to the situation, which is what we should do. Your conclusions should be justifiable either way....at least unless and until we have a more definitive requirement to reference. This same type of conflict comes up with landscape elements quite often. Glenn Matthewson put together a pretty good video about it, sorry I don't have the link at my fingertips, but I bet it is on this forum somewhere. Check out his site: https://buildingcodecollege.com/

 

[steveray]

I think the proposed language is going to have "walking surface within 3' " and hopefully some other tweaks....

 

[bill1952]

It would seem "pedestrian path" as I believe BOCA used would be more clear than "walking surface".

Interesting that transit platforms as well as seawalls and docks seem to be exempted.

Does a steep embankment that's a clear fall injury hazard get exempted because it's not "constructed"?

As far as service people, they work around fall hazards regularly and have their own requirements to protect against injury.

 

[tbz]

I checked my state's code. It adopts the 2018 IRC, and there are no local amendments with regard to this topic. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me to say that the grass along the top of the wall is a walking surface. Unlike the example in your photo, all service people must walk on the grass to service an HVAC unit on the side of the house, along with fiber optic, landscape people, etc. If the intent of the guard requirement is to protect people from falling and being injured, how could a guard not be required for a 4 ft drop?

Jeff and others,

Let's start with some of the basics first,

1. which state are we talking about? what's the secret about your state location if its a Statewide code adoption?
2. where is the retaining wall on the property in relation to the home...location matters
3. you stated that the retaining wall is on the property line,
So is it on both sides of the line or on the high side or low side's property?
IT makes a difference....
Are we talking about a 50x100 lot or 30 acres?
4. who installed it? The owner of the low side or the owner on the high side?
5. Grass is not a walking surface that is regulated by the 2018 IRC and if it is please point it out, and the top of a retaining wall is not a walking surface either, thus no regulated walking surface adjacent next to fall.

Definition of a guard: "A building component or a system of building components located near the open sides of elevated walking surfaces that minimizes the possibility of a fall from the walking surface to the lower level."

6. so if they had a natural stone shale drop to the concrete driveway of the lot next door is a guard required.
7. was the 48" retaining wall permitted under the building code or just built under a zoning requirement?
8. Show me where in the IRC it requires someone with a 40 acre spread to take you from the home in the center of the property to the street with guards along the entire concrete driveway with drop offs, that slope away and drop more than 30 inches within 36 inches?

These are just a few of things and I am guessing if you installed a flagpole in the middle of the yard is that a structure also?

 

[Jeff8737]

Jeff and others,

Let's start with some of the basics first,

1. which state are we talking about? what's the secret about your state location if its a Statewide code adoption? ID
2. where is the retaining wall on the property in relation to the home...location matters. 7.5 ft side setback. Wall at that 7.5 ft from dwelling location
3. you stated that the retaining wall is on the property line,
So is it on both sides of the line or on the high side or low side's property? On the low side's property
IT makes a difference....
Are we talking about a 50x100 lot or 30 acres? 80x90 lot size
4. who installed it? The owner of the low side or the owner on the high side? Owner of low side purchased lot. Prior to his excavation, there was a gently sloped hill. That owner excavated in violation of a lateral support state statute (no notice given to me)
5. Grass is not a walking surface that is regulated by the 2018 IRC and if it is please point it out, and the top of a retaining wall is not a walking surface either, thus no regulated walking surface adjacent next to fall.

Definition of a guard: "A building component or a system of building components located near the open sides of elevated walking surfaces that minimizes the possibility of a fall from the walking surface to the lower level."

6. so if they had a natural stone shale drop to the concrete driveway of the lot next door is a guard required.
7. was the 48" retaining wall permitted under the building code or just built under a zoning requirement? After the homeowner/builder unlawfully excavated, the city directed him to build an engineered wall
8. Show me where in the IRC it requires someone with a 40 acre spread to take you from the home in the center of the property to the street with guards along the entire concrete driveway with drop offs, that slope away and drop more than 30 inches within 36 inches?

These are just a few of things and I am guessing if you installed a flagpole in the middle of the yard is that a structure also?

 

[tbz]

I agree with the OP a guard would be required on a retaining wall that was installed on the property, it follows the intent of the code.
TBZ as to your statement ( devils advocate ) you would not require a guard or hand rail from a landing on a deck then?

Once you exit the structure and are to grade, building code is done...unless you go in to another structure...then to grade and done.

So, you exit the home on to a deck then down to grass grade, IRC stops.

The retaining wall is not a walking surface and nor is the grass per the IRC, otherwise every inspector should be roaming every inch of the property for drops from grass, because the definition of guard says "from elevated walking surfaces"

 

[Sifu]

I think the proposed language is going to have "walking surface within 3' " and hopefully some other tweaks....

That is the threshold I use now, but it has to be a walking surface within that 3'. I like the more specific "pedestrian path" language too. As TBZ is saying, lots of things can be walked on, but that doesn't make them walking surfaces from a code perspective.

I did encounter one once time on a commercial build that was a disaster waiting to happen. A rear sidewalk-pedestrian path, where the adjacent grass sloped away significantly down to a retaining wall 50' away. It did not "require" any guards, but if someone tripped they were going for a long ride. I encouraged them to install a guard, and asked how they thought it would look when they were in court and I said I tried but they met the minimum code and didn't want to spend the money. They put it in.

 

[tbz]

Thank you Jeff for the additional information about the project,

So, the wall was a result of direction from your office to fix an issue created by the builder that they should not have done.

You note that the wall is on the lower side of the fall property, thus the top of the wall is not really an issue for the owner it is an issue created by the owner now affecting the owner next door.

Either way, were in the adopted ID IRC does it say that grass is a walking surface that you regulate for falls? I get the concern, but concern is not a code requirement, and the retaining wall I am guessing does not have a top that is 30 plus inches wide either, so how does that become a walking surface, balance beam maybe, not a defined walking surface.

Though I get your concerns and I get it, this whole problem was created by the owner's builder, or the builder under the direction of the owner.

If the wall is completely on the owner's property, I am not sure how you get there through the IRC, I would venture you need to find another way, but not the IRC.

JMO

 

[tbz]

I think the proposed language is going to have "walking surface within 3' " and hopefully some other tweaks....

Can't wait to see this Steve - but how do you plan to terminate the exterior path length?

Remember an 80 x 90 lot is different than 5 acres or even 30 acres.

You can't cover the entire property

 

[tbz]

and for the record, is a minimum code a logical thing?

 

[e hilton]

If the wall is completely on the owner's property,

So the wall is completely on the property of the low-side owner, and it was put there because of his actions. He and his family and guests are not at risk, effectively he has a nice stone wall. However he is putting his neighbor at risk, therefore the low-side HO should be required to install a guard rail, or restore the slope. Or if the drop-off is a couple of feet inside his property line, then he should pay to install a decorative fence on the PL to serve as a warning to the neighbors pedestrians.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

i would not call a grass lawn as walking surface any more then a flat roof as walking surface.

 

[Sifu]

In my AHJ, where this debate is occurring on the floors over my head, they are giving no thought to just how a guard is constructed on a retaining wall. Most of these are existing, but even the new ones would be problematic. Many are stacked block, all have disturbed fill behind them. Getting the guards to resist the required loads could prove problematic and expensive. When I asked the question I got some blank stares. I think they would be better served to develop a set of criteria for what they consider a walking surface (like pedestrian path!) and enforce it consistently. There may well be instances where it would be required, but there are definitely instances where they would not be required.

 

[bill1952]

I look at the photos tbz posted and can't imagine the expense and public outrage that requiring guards atop them would entail.

I hope supporters will show evidence in the form of injuries and deaths resulting from falls from retaining walls, not just a couple of documented incidents and anectdotal reports, to justify this.