By HRCNN Staff Writer
June 24, 2025 | Richmond, VA
In a pivotal meeting that could influence how future housing is built across the Commonwealth, Virginia’s Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) convened a diverse advisory group this week to evaluate a controversial building code proposal: whether to allow four-story multifamily buildings to be constructed with a single interior exit stairway.
The discussion centered on Proposal B1006.3.4-24, which seeks to extend the current allowance for single-exit stair buildings—currently capped at three stories—to include a fourth story, provided that enhanced safety measures are integrated. Supporters argue that the change would unlock dense urban infill development on constrained lots, improve building efficiency, and align Virginia with emerging national model codes. Opponents, however, caution that removing a second stairwell could introduce unacceptable life safety risks, especially in rural areas.
“The goal isn’t to remove stairs for cost savings,” one advisory group member said. “It’s about allowing more flexible, climate-adaptable designs on small sites, with bedrooms on exterior walls and more access to natural light.”
The proposal mirrors recent language approved by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and submitted for consideration in the 2027 International Building Code (IBC) update. However, Virginia is not bound by either framework and must decide whether to adopt an independent provision. The June 24 meeting marked the first formal effort to gather input from fire officials, architects, engineers, local government staff, planners, and other industry stakeholders.
Design and Energy Considerations
Much of the early discussion focused on the design benefits of single-stair buildings. Advocates noted that the reduction of internal corridors allows for more efficient layouts and better cross-ventilation. Architects in the room pointed out that long, deep units with limited window exposure are more energy-intensive and less desirable for residents. They also cited increased flexibility in mechanical system design and solar orientation.
However, some code officials raised concerns about energy-code compliance, especially related to window-to-wall ratios and thermal performance. While most participants agreed that energy issues could be addressed through design choices, others emphasized the need for clear language to prevent misinterpretation during enforcement.
Fire and Life Safety Remain the Primary Concern
As the conversation shifted, fire service professionals voiced strong reservations. Several attendees noted that in jurisdictions with limited fire coverage—particularly in rural parts of Southwest Virginia—response times can exceed 15 minutes, making the presence of a second exit stair critical to resident survival during emergencies.
“New York and Seattle may show low fatality rates in single-exit buildings, but they have response times under four minutes and deep suppression capacity,” one member said. “We can’t design Virginia code around those standards.”
The concern was not only about egress time, but also about operational conflict—residents attempting to evacuate through the same stairwell that fire personnel need to access for response. The discussion included standpipe requirements, positive pressure ventilation, and notification systems. Several participants emphasized the importance of clear mandates for manual fire alarms and early alert systems, especially in buildings that may lack a second means of egress.
Proposed Revisions Emerge
Despite the disagreement, the group found some common ground. By the end of the meeting, there was general consensus on limiting the proposal strictly to interior stairwells, excluding exterior stairs for now due to additional vulnerabilities. The group also discussed amendments requiring stairwell doors to open in the direction of travel, prohibiting direct access from dwelling units into exit stairs, and revising language to align occupancy calculations with gross floor area rather than net area to avoid enforcement conflicts.
Emergency escape and rescue openings (EEROs), which are required in three-story buildings under the current code, were flagged for inclusion in any revised four-story provision. Participants also urged consistency with existing IBC and Virginia Construction Code requirements, including clarifications on notification system connectivity and sprinkler integration.
What’s Next
DHCD staff indicated that they would work with the code change proponent and fire service representatives to draft a revised proposal. A second review and consensus process will be conducted via email, with a virtual meeting to follow if necessary. The revised language is expected to be narrower in scope, more technically precise, and focused on conditions that reflect Virginia’s unique fire service landscape.
As Virginia continues to wrestle with affordability, density, and safety in housing policy, the single-stair proposal offers a case study in balancing innovation with public protection. Whether the compromise will satisfy both sides remains to be seen.
HRCNN will continue to report on code reform efforts and land use policy shaping Virginia’s built environment.
Submit commentary or article ideas at: https://earthlyinfrastructure.com/hrcnn-submit-article
