Will my deck staircase meet code.

Posted by consumer@yahoo.com on October 7, 2006, 12:58 am

I have been posting on problems that I have had in building a 2nd level
deck through a local contractor. The deck fits into an "L" corner of
the house, so it borders the house on two sides, a pool on one side,
and one side that has no structure against it.

One of the issues was with the staircase leading to the deck. The
staircase had a limited space where it could be put due to the
proximity of a pool and pool fence. I guess that a stair case could
be put on the only end of the deck not butting the house or next to the
pool, although I would not prefer this, and once again this would
entail more cost and time. The staircase was against a wall of the
house, and the eve of the house is quite low relative to the level of
the deck. The staircase is pretty much up against an exterior wall of
the house with an eve extending 15" past the wall of the house and over
the staircase. The staircase goes up to the deck at a similar angle
to the eve of the house. After the contractor had partially
constructed the stairs it became clear that as he had constructed it, I
would hit my head (im 5' 9" ) at multiple places goin g up the
staircase if I walked up the side of the stairs next to the house) ,
so I paid the contractor to tear it down. Now he is planning to
reconstruct it at a steeper angle than previously which allows adequate
head clearance (over 74") until the final step onto the deck. The
final step onto the deck only has about 66" on the portion of steps
against the house. The portion of the steps (about 27" of stair width)
has no eve above it so it is totally clear.

Would the fact that 15" of the last step onto the deck has low head
clearance pass code? Once again, there is about 27" of width that has
no eve above it. If this does pose a code violation, would it rectify
the situation to place a rail at the top of the deck preventing
stepping onto the deck at a location with eve above it? I personally
can see no way to rectify this situation without tearing out the pool
fence to allow movement of the stairs away from the eve of the house
(of course having no pool fence is probably a code violation too), or
totally moving the stairs to the end of the deck not next to a portion
of the house or pool .

Posted by mrsgator88 on October 7, 2006, 1:16 am

Code varies from town to town. Even when you're not in compliance with
code, inspectors will sometimes let things pass if its not unreasonable. If
they won't let it pass you can ask for a variance.

You need to stop being afraid of the code and the inspectors. It is what it
is and you'll have to deal with it sooner or later. Even if you can live
with things you don't like one day you'll be selling the house and how will
that be affected?

Sorry, but this is just getting annoying now. Call the town and discuss
this. Maybe everything is fine the way you have it. Maybe you don't even
need a permit.

>I have been posting on problems that I have had in building a 2nd level
> deck through a local contractor. The deck fits into an "L" corner of
> the house, so it borders the house on two sides, a pool on one side,
> and one side that has no structure against it.
> One of the issues was with the staircase leading to the deck. The
> staircase had a limited space where it could be put due to the
> proximity of a pool and pool fence. I guess that a stair case could
> be put on the only end of the deck not butting the house or next to the
> pool, although I would not prefer this, and once again this would
> entail more cost and time. The staircase was against a wall of the
> house, and the eve of the house is quite low relative to the level of
> the deck. The staircase is pretty much up against an exterior wall of
> the house with an eve extending 15" past the wall of the house and over
> the staircase. The staircase goes up to the deck at a similar angle
> to the eve of the house. After the contractor had partially
> constructed the stairs it became clear that as he had constructed it, I
> would hit my head (im 5' 9" ) at multiple places goin g up the
> staircase if I walked up the side of the stairs next to the house) ,
> so I paid the contractor to tear it down. Now he is planning to
> reconstruct it at a steeper angle than previously which allows adequate
> head clearance (over 74") until the final step onto the deck. The
> final step onto the deck only has about 66" on the portion of steps
> against the house. The portion of the steps (about 27" of stair width)
> has no eve above it so it is totally clear.
> Would the fact that 15" of the last step onto the deck has low head
> clearance pass code? Once again, there is about 27" of width that has
> no eve above it. If this does pose a code violation, would it rectify
> the situation to place a rail at the top of the deck preventing
> stepping onto the deck at a location with eve above it? I personally
> can see no way to rectify this situation without tearing out the pool
> fence to allow movement of the stairs away from the eve of the house
> (of course having no pool fence is probably a code violation too), or
> totally moving the stairs to the end of the deck not next to a portion
> of the house or pool .
>

Posted by eDeck.net on October 7, 2006, 10:32 am

You'll probably find that 80 inches clearance at a point directly above
the nosing of any tread is a code violation. And the 27 inch width is
under code also (36"). Sounds like the only solution to your problem
is to that open side for the stairs, or to look into a spiral staircase.

Posted by consumer@yahoo.com on October 7, 2006, 12:17 pm

I am sorry for beating this thread to death, but please understand
where I am coming from. Further, I am grateful for the many posters
who have taken their time to give their insight and experience on this
thread.

I started this whole thing as an effort to prevent someone from being
injured on the old rusty staircase to a deck which clearly was not
built to code, or failling from the deck from breakage of the rusty
railings. I started with a cost estimate of less than eight thousand
dollars (labor and materials). I did not know that a permit was
required. I thought that I would be improving the appearance, safety
and value of my home.

Now I have already spent 22K, have a builder (high bidder) who I have
had repeated conflicts with over his charges for things that in all
honesty, I do not believe or understand could be considered extras. I
have paid nonetheless for 100% of the builders extra charges because I
have always been the type of person who tries to be more than fair in
dealings with others, although I have let the builder know that I did
indeed totally disagree with his charges as reasonable. Now I am
petrified that despite all my good intentions, this projects costs will
only continue to significantly escalate. I am not joking that at this
point that the thought just occured to me that it is a viable option to
simply demo the whole thing. I truely regret ever starting the
project.

How is it possible that this could happen? How is it possible that a
professional contractor would start work on a project that the
contractor knows requires a permit but does not obtain one. Why does
the city not make it mandatory that a professional contractor get one.
This would be no different than a surgeon getting a consent prior to
surgery. I am sure that if failure to get a permit by a contactor led
to stiff fees or loss of licensure for the contractor, this problem
would not happen or would happen very infrequently. I am not a
contractor, indeed I have no building skills or expertise whatsoever,
and that is why I hired a professional contractor. Why is the burden
of getting a permit put on the homeowner who, as in my case, is unaware
that a permit may be required? It would seem to me that a contractor
should be held liable if they knowingly work on a project without a
permit leading to extra costs to make the project meet code. I know
that if the inspector requires any changes, my contractor will demand
extra labor costs to correct code violations. Does the city have the
authority to compel the contactor to fix code violations, How should I
handle it when my contractor demands extra labor costs to fix these
code violations. ?

Posted by Bob Morrison on October 7, 2006, 12:48 pm

In a previous post consumer@yahoo.com wrote...

> Does the city have the
> authority to compel the contactor to fix code violations, How should I
> handle it when my contractor demands extra labor costs to fix these
> code violations. ?
>
>

You, as the project owner, have the legal responsibility to bring all
parts of the project to code. If the work is not to code then you can in
turn pursue legal action against the contractor to make him bring his work
into compliance. Is the contractor licensed and bonded?

In all of this I don't recall if you said you signed a written contract.
Did you? Did you at least get a written estimate? Even if you did
neither you may still have legal recourse against your contractor. It's
probably time to talk to an attorney.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > last >>

Similar Threads	Posted
re: will my staircase meet code?	October 9, 2006, 10:07 am
Introducing The Hz2.1 Portable Hot Stamp Wire Marker to Meet Industry's Need for Flexible, Cost-effective Wire Marking	April 30, 2007, 4:07 pm
Dutch Staircase	August 29, 2006, 9:34 pm
10" tread boards okay for staircase?	October 17, 2006, 10:42 pm
Staircase Design Help Needed	November 20, 2006, 2:16 am
is a 10" step code?	July 26, 2006, 2:33 pm
Building Code Questions	June 24, 2007, 12:23 pm
Waste Pipe Code in NYC	July 18, 2007, 3:02 pm
garage and elect. code	January 19, 2008, 12:57 pm
Snowload- new construction roof not to code.	November 4, 2006, 1:16 pm