[RE-wrenches] Access pathways

[jay]

HI Rebecca,

I can only suggest that you contact the local fire department/s and  find out if they get on roofs, if they need access to that part of your roof etc. If they do not then that is something that you can then go back to the building dept and ask for a waiver. 

I have had success and heard of other successes with doing such things.

Good luck

jay

peltz power


> On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:04 PM, Rebecca Lundberg <rebecca.lundberg at powerfullygreen.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Solar Colleagues,
> 
> I know the building code language regarding PV installations providing 3' access pathways was proposed and adopted in several states a few years ago. 
> 
> "3113.1.2.1 Residential buildings with hip roof layouts. Panels or modules installed on residential buildings with hip roof layouts shall be located in a manner that provides a 3-foot-wide (914 mm) clear access pathway from the eave to the ridge on each roof slope where panels/modules are located. The access pathway shall be located at a location on the building capable of supporting the live load of firefighters accessing the roof." (this is just a partial quote from here https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=1305.3113 <https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=1305.3113>)
> 
> This is a newly adopted code addition in MN, and there was absolutely no discussion with the solar industry. In MN we install solar on the south-facing roof as optimal, with perhaps the SE, SW, or even the east- or west-facing roof as possible options, but we almost without exception NEVER would mount solar panels on any roof with an azimuth 270 - 90 degrees (i.e. north of west or north of east). The requirement to leave a 3' walkway on all surfaces will in many cases diminish the amount of available roof surface for a residential solar PV installation to about 40% of previous designs. 
> 
> I see how this safety requirement may be necessary in a state where mounting solar panels on all roof surfaces is an option, but in MN since we can really only mount on the south-facing roof I don't understand how safety for fire fighters is a primary concern with this code addition. My understanding is that if there is another roof surface available, fire fighters would not choose to vent a roof with solar panels even if a 3' walkway is available -- so for what purpose are we avoiding that roof space for a solar installation?
> 
> Our local folks at the state level either don't understand these details or feel that there must be an overriding reason that this building code language has been adopted in other states. Can any of you give me input, comments, thoughts on this topic that I could contribute here on a local level?
> 
> Thank you in advance for your comments.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Rebecca Lundberg
> NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer ®
> Powerfully Green®
> 763.438.1976 <>
> Powered by the Sun!
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
> 
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
> 
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
> 
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
> 
> Check out or update participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20160326/136a19dc/attachment-0003.html>