JCraver
Sawhorse
Glenn, You started the discussion regarding code language regarding stairs, but then broadly expanded the discussion by mentioning "Exterior walking surfaces, ramps, stairs, driveways, patios, porches, decks, concrete slabs, crusher fine pathways, etc,...".
The City of Sandy is predominately located on a hillsides and ravines, with the majority of homes having sloping driveways and has ice and snow every winter. We have adopted a policy to require One-and-Two Family Residential homes be provided with a "Safe Walkway to the street, sidewalk or the public way". This policy applies the same standards for stairs, handrails and ramps to the required Safe Walkway. Oregon Building Codes Division questioned our requirement, saying that it was not supported by the Residential Code. However, we pointed to Intent and Purpose as being the fundamental standard, and that our policy was consistent with the Intent statement. Further more, the duties and powers of the Building Official states that the Building Official has the authority to render interpretations and adopt policies that are in compliance with the intent and purpose of the code. Our policy is to provide a safe walkway from the primary entrance to the public way. The driveway may be used as part of the Safe Walkway if it does not exceed a slope of 1 unit vertical to 12 units horizontal (8.3%) and does not have a cross slope greater than 1/4 inch per foot (2%).
So back to your question regarding my statement. The intent of the building code is to provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety - including fire fighters and emergency responders. And I would suggest that also includes building inspectors, mail carriers, delivery persons, etc...
I know you didn't ask for my opinion but I'm going to give it to you anyway - ^^ that's nonsense. Because your BO (or you, if you're the top guy?) believes a "safe walkway" from the house to the road is somehow safer than doing without does not make it code. You can modify your local zoning and/or planning ordinances to mandate it if you want and, while I'd still think it was dumb and recommend against it, at least it would be in the right place and done correctly. Stretching the charging language of the code to set a policy to get it done is completely wrong. Policies are bad, anyway - a policy for how much a copy costs or who makes the coffee or what time inspections start is fine (I guess), but policies that make rules are bad. The BO shouldn't be making rules - he should be reading the rules out of the book(s).
** If I misunderstood how you accomplished your requirement and it is codified within your ordinances then disregard all that, but your post doesn't read like that's how you did it.
I disagree with your last sentence, too. Occupants and first responders is all you get out of 101.3 - inspectors, mailmen, and the Amazon driver don't make the cut. See the Commentary:
❖ The intent of the code is to establish regulations providing for safety, health and general welfare of building occupants, as well as for fire fighters and emergency responders during building emergencies. The intent becomes important in the application of such sections as Sections R102, R104.11 and R113, as well as any enforcement-oriented interpretive action or judgment. Like any code, the written text is subject to interpretation. Interpretations should not be affected by economics or the potential impact on any party. The only considerations should be occupants’ safety, protection of occupants’ health and welfare and emergency responder safety.