Dave,
I am addressing this out of order from your question:
Davethescot wrote:The prospective owner discussed my report with the builder for rectification who advised her that the city inspector had issued a certificate of occupancy for the house therefore disregard my comments. The city uses 2003 versions of all codes and there is no local deviation documented from this code for the AHJ.
My opinion on this is that the city inspector was incorrect in accepting the construction as presented and as defined in the code below.
From the 2003 IRC (underlining is mine)
- R110.5 Revocation. The building official shall, in writing,
suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or
where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or
any provisions of this code.
Now, theoretically, the building official steps in and suspends the CO, leaving the contractor to mumble and grumble and have to bring the building into compliance with the code before the CO is reissued ... theoretically ...
In reality, the best use of that is to meet with the building official, inquire about the code section in question in a way in which you are trying to learn and understand the code's requirements, and when the building official explains the requirements in the same way you already understand those requirements, then present your photo and description and ask something like 'In this situation (photo), based on my understanding of what you just described, there needs to be (blah-blah-blah) ... right?' Then let the building official mull over the photo and what you described.
The best result will be that the building official says that he will go over this with his inspector, then the inspector will go back out to the site and verify that the separation is present, and if not, explain to the contractor what is required.
If the contractor refuses - that is where the building official may possibly withdraw (suspend) the CO, in which case the contractor does not have a choice. I have had several CO's suspended in the past when the building officials agreed with my assessment and the contractors refused to make any corrections ... refused to make corrections until the CO's were suspended, then the contractor did not have a choice but to make the corrections the building official said were needed.
I recently inspected a new home pending closing, with a walled but open stairwell at the rear of the garage leading to the common (non-separated) attic above the entire house. The gas fired split system heat pump is located in the attic. I advised my client that this stairwell would need a compliant doorset installed to preserve fire separation.
I would change the term "doorset" into "door" as "doorset" almost implies the hinges and latchset (at least to me), whereas using "door" is consistent with what the code states with regard to protections of openings: (underlining is mine)
- R309.1 Opening protection. (blah-blah-blah) Other openings between the garage and residence shall be equipped with solid wood
doors ... steel
doors ... fire-rated
doors.
Then, back to separation between the garage and the residence "and its attic": (underlining is mine)
- R309.2 Separation required. The garage shall be separated from the residence
and its attic area by
not less than 1/2 " gypsum board applied to the garage side. (blah-blah-bah - which is not applicable to this discussion)
Thus, the garage is required to be "separated" (I would also drop the "fire" in "fire separation" as the code simply calls it "separation" ) from the residence "and its attic" - but ...
... the 2003 code does not specifically address "openings between the garage and residence" ... 'and its attic' ... that is a very good point of a possible inconsistency in the code - I will check with the ICC about what they think "the intent" is about openings from the garage into the "and its attic" ... in the meantime, though, I will apply what I have always applied in the past -> minimum 1/2 inch gypsum board as the separation (disregarding for now the 'openings' aspect which might, or might not, require a compliant separation "door") ... however, the wording of the 2015 IRC does seem to clear up what the intent is (but I will check with ICC to verify what I thinking the 2015 is saying as it is not specific either).
Thus, from the photo:
- Under that stair (unless the gypsum board on the walls completely enclose the garage under-stair area from the attic): the underside of that stair needs to be minimum 1/2 inch gypsum board, and you may not have anyway to check it, unless the stairs are made such that you can see through any cracks or small openings.
- At the top of the stairs, whether the opening is to the left or straight (I can't tell from the photo): the 'door' in the opening from the garage (stair side) into the attic (house side of the attic) needs to be at least 1/2 inch gypsum - however, because such a gypsum 'door' would likely break quite easily, that 'door' is likely plywood, which would need to have 1/2 inch gypsum covering it.
- - I will post what ICC says after if clarifies what the intent of is for 'doors' in "openings" from the garage into the 'house's attic' ... the wording in the 2015 IRC does help with the intent of the code, but I will check to make sure.
- Additionally, that stair much meet all of the other requirements for stairs:
- - riser heights and variation between highest and shortest risers
- - tread depths
- - stair width (measured at and above handrail heights)
- - headroom
- - landings (sizes) at top and bottom of the stair
- - handrails (those handrail ends do not return to the wall or floor
- - lighting (the stair looks dark)
I realize that I have not not provided a complete answer, but that is because of a possible inconsistency in the code that I had not noticed before and I need ICC to address it - "openings" into the 'house's attic' ... are 'doors' in "openings" to the residence's attic to be treated the same as "doors" in "openings" to the residence? At a minimum - 1/2" drywall 'door' ... but possibly a full compliant "door" is required.