• 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.

Unusual guardrail assembly. Is this a violation?

I would have them raise the guard on the exterior side of the stairs to 36" above the nosing (side of deck is closer than 36"), and re-do the stairs. I would say hot tub side is ok because no guard is required with pool decks, and there are less than four risers.
 
TJ and Brugers to only to be an instigator i would look at the exception

2. The exterior landing at an exterior doorway shall not be more than 7¾ inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold, provided the door, other than an exterior storm or screen door does not swing over the landing.

and take the view that a storm / screen door exception is predicated on there being a primary door in the wall with the storm / screen being a secondary door

in viewing the screen enclosure in photo I would require thos doors to swing in (or have a landing) based on no primary door present that would make a bad situation

(door over stairs) necessary
 
Request a new Supervisor

Daddy-O,

Daddy-0- I turned them down and told them to install a higher guard. My supervisor disagreed. He said that the adjacent walking space is not the ground five feet below, but the lower deck portion. Since the deck is less than 30" below the porch, no guard or hand rail required. The risers are another issue. Agree? I don't.
Click to expand...
Are you telling me your supervisor is basing weather a guard is required on the amount of height the stairs rise from landing to landing for were it sits? How close does the edge of the stairs need to be to trigger the requirement?

Please correct me that your supervisor is not saying this......

Let me ask it a different way, the upper porch he/she agrees needs guards because of it's height above ground, the lower deck needs a guard because of it's height above ground, but the stairs connecting the 2 doesn't because the steps are within the decks area of coverage, and not exactly directly along the side/edge of the lower deck and thus inside the guards edge, by this the open side is restricted and less than 30"?

Buy your supervisor a set of crayons and take away the thermos.

1. The stairs require the guard to be the correct height of the nosing line because the lower decks guard is at the same approximate point were the stairs guard would also be installed.

2. The stairs don't need a handrail, not 4 risers

3. The stair risers need to be corrected

4. The screen door IMO I, though not often, agree with brudgers on this one, no good, but I just build guards not my area.....
 
Architect1281 said:
and take the view that a storm / screen door exception is predicated on there being a primary door in the wall with the storm / screen being a secondary door
Click to expand...
How does that suddenly become safer than one door?
 
This is not the main egress door. It is a rear screen porch. Thanks for all of the debate.

Tom Z,

It is what it is. I did not get the re-inspection so I am not sure what the final fix was if anything. I see weird stuff everyday as do all of you I am sure. Thanks...
 
It seems to me: if the "intent" of the code is to prevent people from accidentally falling over the guard, then it I would say it fails due to it not being the correct height upon leaving the door, thus raising the possibility of an accident. Otoh, if the door swung the opposite direction, I don't know if I would worry about it as much.
 
Daddy-0- said:
This is not the main egress door. It is a rear screen porch. Thanks for all of the debate. Tom Z,

It is what it is. I did not get the re-inspection so I am not sure what the final fix was if anything. I see weird stuff everyday as do all of you I am sure. Thanks...
Click to expand...
Always hated it when I didn't get the re-inspect - in a good jurisdiction, if you get a re-inspect from someone else AND you couldn't really figure what it was you were suppose to be re-inspecting, you could call the original inspector and have a conversation; but I've known of jurisdictions where this was frowned on. IMHO, best policy is to have the same inspector do the re-inspect, he/she knows what they saw in the first place, they are in the best position to do the re-inspect AND it will take them less time to find the 'violation' and check to see it's been corrected. Things like this make me very happy with my airport job.
 
If you always get your reinspections there is no chance to q.c. sometimes I like it when other people go behind me. They might see something I missed. Helps everyone learn.
 
Daddy-0- said:
If you always get your reinspections there is no chance to q.c. sometimes I like it when other people go behind me. They might see something I missed. Helps everyone learn.
Click to expand...
When building there's nothing more dreaded than the substitute inspector just for that reason; there's no consistency and what one inspector sees as not a problem another one pops a cork over. If the normal inspector is not going to be available we'll reschedule for when they will be available. Fortunately we can do that usually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top