Were does the Inspectors Enforcement stop?

[tbz]

Good morning everyone,

Have a client with what I call a particullary odd situation IMO, because of what they want to do.

First offwe are under 2009 IRC as adopted by NJ,

The client tells me they did the revamp work about 8-10 years ago???

The driveway wall was higher at one point and they removed the upper portions due to it falling a part, cinder blocks.

Here is my question now that I rambled on.

Is the landing on the bottom of the stair treads part of the IRC or is as soon as you step off the last step is jurisdiction done?

Where would you require guards on the driveway side?

(There is no permit on this project, we were called in because the owner is thinking of selling and asking what is the minimum they need to have done to comply?

The conflict with the client & I is the amount of guard on the walls by the driveway, because they are hollow and we can't mount anything that will last I suggested cutting down the wall to walking level for the middle step portion, they don't want to do that.

Just looking for input

 

[mtlogcabin]

From a code perspective I am done when you reach the landing at the bottom of the step from the house (would have required handrails)

From an insurance inspection report install handrails on the steps from the house and the ones leading to the driveway and a guardrail around the drop off along the walking surface.

 

[fatboy]

IRC directs you to "grade", once you arrive there, I think the IRC stops having jurisdiction. Not entirely safe......

 

[brudgers]

The building code does not apply to existing conditions when no construction is occurring...i.e. it stops at CO.

 

[steveray]

Good answer Brudgers, but I think they are trying to make amends for some work that was done w/o permits......From the looks of it...the term "walking surface" comes to mind and might be inclined to require a guard throught the landing at the bottom of the stairs on that one....

 

[tbz]

Thanks for the input all, just what I thought.

Burgess, unlike many other areas, NJ requires all homes before transferring title to meet a minumum building code level.

Thus though the current owner is not required to do the work by the local building department to continue living there, before they get the new C/O from the town , for the title to transfer to new owner, they will be required to do so.

secondly, insurance companies here for some reason have a big hang up on handrails, but don't push guards.

My concern is the wall because there is nothing there to mount to that will not fall a part when the guard gets a good amount of weight behind it.

Again thanks for the input.

Tom

 

[pwood]

My concern is the wall because there is nothing there to mount to that will not fall a part when the guard gets a good amount of weight behind it.

Again thanks for the input.

Tom

I don't think it would be my concern. they did the work without a permit and now need to make it comply and be safe. it is their concern and you only inspect and approve.

 

[Coder]

Thanks for the input all, just what I thought.Burgess, unlike many other areas, NJ requires all homes before transferring title to meet a minumum building code level.

Thus though the current owner is not required to do the work by the local building department to continue living there, before they get the new C/O from the town , for the title to transfer to new owner, they will be required to do so.

secondly, insurance companies here for some reason have a big hang up on handrails, but don't push guards.

My concern is the wall because there is nothing there to mount to that will not fall a part when the guard gets a good amount of weight behind it.

Again thanks for the input.

Tom

I would say if that landing is more than 30" to the driveway below then a guard is required. How they achieve adequate installation to withstand the forces applied, would be up to them.

R312.1 Where required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, ramps and landings, that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. Insect screening shall not be considered as a guard.

R312.2 Height. Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) high measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads.

Exceptions:

1. Guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.

2. Where the top of the guard also serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall not be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.

R312.3 Opening limitations. Required guards shall not have openings from the walking surface to the required guard height which allow passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) in diameter.

Exceptions:

1. The triangular openings at the open side of a stair, formed by the riser, tread and bottom rail of a guard, shall not allow passage of a sphere 6 inches (153 mm) in diameter.

2. Guards on the open sides of stairs shall not have openings which allow passage of a sphere 43/8 inches (111 mm) in diameter.

 

[globe trekker]

tbz,

I agree with others in that once someone has arrived at the bottom of

the exterior stairs, the jurisdiction of the IRC would stop. Any new

guards or railings to be installed would be under the IBC, or the local

ordinances of the AHJ.

Also, see Section 1013 (Guards) in the 2009 IBC. Any guards /

`railings would need to be designed by an RDP, ...various vertical /

lateral loads involved.

.

 

[ewenme]

Your opportunity to get it up to code would to issue [or not] a permit for a 'new' guard at the wall/stairs. Their conscience is soothed [they've made amends for previous violations] and they can sell the house and you get to issue a permit and do an inspection. Is everybody happy? Let the past go. Do what is right for now. IMHO

 

[brudgers]

Good answer Brudgers, but I think they are trying to make amends for some work that was done w/o permits......From the looks of it...the term "walking surface" comes to mind and might be inclined to require a guard throught the landing at the bottom of the stairs on that one....

If the wall was falling over (and since there is nothing to support a guard, there probably wasn't anything to support the wall either), then it's hard to say that they really did something which ought to require a permit. That's not to say that the condition is safe, but what they did was closer to removal of debris than construction.

 

[tbz]

Mr. I & EW,

Others on the site know this already, I should of made it more clear since I have been away working for the summer, I am not an inspector, I am a custom fabricator of handrails & Guards, I was active for about 15 lus years at the hearings, but the economy has made attendance harder this cycle.

Thus the wall does effect me because of what we need to mount our product to and since we don't do masonry work of the size needed here, getting the client to hire another contractor to do more than they want to is a bit of a task.

Burg,

I agree in that taking down part of the wall more than likely did not require a permit, however, the contractor that did take it down, IMO, should have dropped in vertical rebar in the openings and then filled with concrete IMO, which would have stiffened up the wall rather than just drop in busted block on the top row and then scratch fill over the top, again JMO.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Build a 36 inch tall X 18 inch wide rack that can be anchored to the slab. Put some flower boxes in the rack and call it good. You are anchoring to the slab and also transfering some of the load to the top of the wall through the 18" width of the rack. Should work

 

[globe trekker]

tbz,

Will the lack of handrails on the exterior steps be addressed in the process?

(as part of the exit discharge)?

.

 

[tbz]

GT,

The upper stairs off the landing, before a C/O is issued for the home to be sold to the next owner, will require a guard from the exterior wall of the house to the bottom riser of the upper main stairs.

This guard's top will also serve the handrail requirements for the stair flight also.

The other side of the platform and the stairs are less than 30" above the grade below and thus no guard required, but the owner will install a "railing" to match the required guard for the look.

As for the lower stairs and the lawn level platform, the state code does not require it, but the new owner will not be able to get insuarnce without that portion being done also.

Because some is required to be done for the C/O and the other for the new owners insurance, this normally ends up being negotiated prior to closing.

 

[ICE]

The building code does not apply to existing conditions when no construction is occurring...i.e. it stops at CO.

A CO doesn't mean that one gets to keep a mistake made by a BO. I have encountered BO mistakes after a CO has been issued and if there is danger attached I get it straightened out. Now and then, I am the BO that made the mistake.

Recently I was instructed to final a solar installation that had, what I considered to be, a dangerous condition. A week later I attended a seminar on solar by a well known electrical engineer. My concern about the installation that I approved was borne out.

I applied Thompson's rule #1: It is never too late to start over.

The contractor didn't take the news well so I had to explain Thompson's rule #2: We make the rules.

 

[Daddy-0-]

Why don't you just bust out the mortar fill and pour some concrete in the hollow cores. Then you can attach the guards to something solid and shore up the wall. I know you are not a mason but any village idiot can mix a few bags of sacrete.

 

[ICE]

any village idiot can mix a few bags of sacrete.

And if your village doesn't have one....give me a call

 

[Architect1281]

and their accessory structures which would be the retaining wall - permit required - design required and the greater than 30 " between those walking surfaces - guard required ......

 

[Architect1281]

seeing a lot of FHA FMHA inspection reports which are calling a hazardous or potential liability conditions where the mortage holder requires rails and guards where even the code does no 2- 3 riser steps and surface differences less than 30.. the contractors cannot construct without permits and the code does not require but .. our thoery is if you build it it must comply so strength anchorage spacing all as if it was required.