BAM filed a summons and complaint last week in a lawsuit against the City of Saint Paul in response to the City’s current egress window policy for existing homes which directly violates Minnesota Statute 299F.011 by exceeding the Minnesota State Building Code.
The existing City of St. Paul’s egress window policy opposes the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in the Sax v. City of Morris case, which gives the case industry-wide impact. It would be detrimental to the residential construction industry if other municipalities began applying regulations that violate the State Building Code.
BAM gathered more background from the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry and did more research on the egress window changes. We found in the Statement of Need and Reasonableness for the rule (code) changes, that Minnesota adopted the Minnesota-specific exception to encourage people to replace their windows without forcing them to change the rough opening. The benefits of replacing a window outweigh the health and safety benefits of requiring a larger window.
Background: Egress Window Requirements in the Minnesota State Building Code
The Minnesota State Building Code has specific requirements for single-family home egress windows, which are formally called, “emergency escape and rescue openings.” In new homes at least one egress window is required in each sleeping room and in each basement. The code requires that each egress window have a specific minimum net clear opening, and minimum opening height and width.
The residential building code has different egress window requirements when existing windows are replaced with new windows in owner-occupied single-family homes. As long as the replacement window in a sleeping room is the manufacturer’s largest standard size window that will fit within the window frame or existing rough opening, the egress requirement is met.
The arguments in the complaint are very solid. We will keep you updated on the progress of the case.
