• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Romeo and Juliet balconies

Sifu

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
2,813
Heated debate here, I say there is no violation with a Romeo and Juliet type balcony. What I have is an exterior door that opens into a room, directly outside and across the opening is a fully compliant guard rail. EEO, and required egress are not an issue. My boss says can't do it because every door requires a landing. I pointed out that human traffic is not intended for this opening. I also pointed out the exception at 311.3. What say you? I know, he's the boss and if he doesn't allow them so be it. Just looking for validation if there is any to be had. 2009 IRC. Thanks.
 
The boss is right:::: NOT

Would he allow a nice big openable window there???
 
Would be interesting to know what kicked off the debate.

You have a supportable and nearly ironclad position using R311.3 exception.

Here is an interesting counterpoint for the debate: If the door is not used as a door (in normal use no human passes through the door walking or other ambulatory mode), then can it be a door? If not a door, then can it be a window?
 
jdfruit said:
Would be interesting to know what kicked off the debate.You have a supportable and nearly ironclad position using R311.3 exception.

Here is an interesting counterpoint for the debate: If the door is not used as a door (in normal use no human passes through the door walking or other ambulatory mode), then can it be a door? If not a door, then can it be a window?
Click to expand...
Ah Confusious , wise grasshopper
 
What I had an architect do to solve this debate was place the french doors on top of the plate, that raises it up a few inches so it's clearly a "window". Builders like it too since it's easier to frame (no recessing sills) and easier to waterproof.
 
I overheard one of the plans being examined and being denied and had to jump in. Ironically I have about a 7 million dollar house right now where the same thing was approved. And I did try the "what is a door" approach. He is hung up on the landing being required because it is a door, to which I asked the rather philosophical question....."if a door is in the woods and nobody goes through it, is it still a door?" I asked him to define a door and didn't get an answer. I believe the intent of the code is to require a landing at a door WHEN THAT DOOR IS FOR HUMAN TRAFFIC, not when it is simply an opening where the intended use is for aesthetics, light and ventilation. But, he is the boss so I will enforce it....when he is watching. CONARB, pretty elegant solution that solves a lot of issues, I will keep in mind for future conflicts.
 
Sifu

So a person submits plans with the Romeo door/window

And guard

Than puts a landing outside

Would he approve it????

Platform for Juliet ????
 
\ said:
CONARB, pretty elegant solution that solves a lot of issues, I will keep in mind for future conflicts.
Click to expand...
Note that I said it raised it a "few" inches, bear in mind for this approach to look "elegant" you have to take into consideration the width of the interior casing, if the casing is going to be wide you may have to raise the sole plate up higher to wrap the casing around the entire "window", this entails doubling, tripling, or quadrupling the sole plate. I learned this by remodeling older mansions in Piedmont and Hillsborough, this is how they did it back when they built real mansions.
 
Rather than focus on what defines a 'door' (or creatively mask its' designed intent), perhaps a better question might be 'what is an exterior balcony?'.

While I agree that it is a no harm, no foul situation, and that it does not violate the intent of the Code nor create an unsafe condition, when I hear the words 'exterior balcony' I envision something more than a fenestration and a guard rail.
 
Correct there is no balcony. I have requested a technical opinion as to whether the exception is intended to allow the fenestration and guard rail. Personally I don't think a technical opinion, or code for that matter is needed to allow this. The code doesn't address everything and is not intended to. Some things must be left to figure out on our own.
 
Definition of WINDOW. an opening especially in the wall of a building for admission of light and air that is usually closed by casements or sashes containing transparent material (as glass) and capable of being opened and shut.

Definition of door

a hinged, sliding, or revolving barrier at the entrance to a building, room, or vehicle, or in the framework of a cupboard

it is a window, approved as submitted
 
We appear to agree. Now we'll see if ICC can lend it any legitimacy.
 
Not enough to bet any money on it but I remain hopeful.
 
The other way to look at is is to ask why a landing is required. If code should be read and interpreted by reasonable people. We can only do that if the intent of the code is known. If the intent of the landing requirement seems ludicrous in this scenario it likely is and should not be enforced.

It feels weird to see absolutely everyone agreeing on something here...
 
tmurray said:
The other way to look at is is to ask why a landing is required. If code should be read and interpreted by reasonable people. We can only do that if the intent of the code is known. If the intent of the landing requirement seems ludicrous in this scenario it likely is and should not be enforced.It feels weird to see absolutely everyone agreeing on something here...
Click to expand...
Hay ,,,, only one person is wrong

Everyone likes a winner
 
cda said:
Hay ,,,, only one person is wrongEveryone likes a winner
Click to expand...
I guess everyone here has a similar outlook on code requirements that I do; if I understand the intent of the code requirement and in a particular situation it would be stupid to require compliance then I don't require it.
 
[A] 104.1 General.

The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.

A lot of Building Officials refuse to step up to the plate and adopt a policy to clarify something as simple as this.

A policy not only clarifies the intent of an application to a specific design it provides consistency in how a specific code section is enforced within the jurisdiction.
 
tmurray said:
I guess everyone here has a similar outlook on code requirements that I do; if I understand the intent of the code requirement and in a particular situation it would be stupid to require compliance then I don't require it.
Click to expand...
T Murray:

Our Supreme Court is now considering King vs. Burwell, this outcome should clarify the issue as to whether the government has to enforce the letter of the law or whether they can take into consideration the intent of the law. The Obama administration is arguing that Congress' intent controls, the other side is claiming that the government has to enforce the letter of the law, this decision should have a wide-ranging impact on what everyone in government does.
 
I have been following King v Burwell and the basic argument will be difficult for intent v letter. All arguments in this vein will be tempered by opinions on what are the controlling factors to arrive at results desired and those results are the argument focus. Whatever comes out of the case may not be directly applicable to Building Officials making decisions on "code" as code is a subset of statute laws with code governed by specifically established enabling laws setting out the range of authority given to the administrating official. Fortunately the enabling laws are well more defined than the ACA being argued in the Supreme Court.
 
I should have said "this decision could have a wide-ranging impact on what everyone in government does" instead of "this decision should have a wide-ranging impact on what everyone in government does", the Supremes at times narrowly tailor their decisions so they only apply to the case at issue, at other times the broadly tailor their decisions to have a "wide-ranging impact" and create policy. We have to wait and see what they actually come down with, and cases of late have reached desired results by some pretty obscure reasoning, and example was Chief Justice Roberts' interpretation in the prior case, an interesting take on this:

\ said:
At worst, the wording of the law might be considered ambiguous, and in ambiguous circumstances the court has said that it should defer to reasonable interpretations by the agency in charge of administering it. In this case, the IRS has interpreted the law to allow subsidies for those on federal exchanges.¹
Click to expand...
If they come down saying that ambiguous law can be interpreted by the agency in charge of administrating it, that could give the CBO latitude in his interpretation of the ambiguities, and God knows the codes are full of ambiguities.

¹ http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hasen-roberts-supreme-court-obamacare-20141113-story.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top