The Building Code Council's special committee on side-yard setbacks met to review a petition asking for minimum pathway standards to ensure emergency access to the rear of buildings. Committee members debated numeric minimums, where authority lies between building, fire and land-use codes, and whether the state should preempt local decisions. After extended technical discussion, the committee voted to direct staff to draft a response to the petition recommending no immediate state rulemaking and to memorialize the committee's findings for future reference.

Committee members centered the discussion on life-safety access for first responders, particularly the turning radius needed to maneuver a gurney. Tom Young, speaking about his contacts with fire officials, said the concern arose from firefighters' ability to “get people out on a gurney,” and that some jurisdictions (Marysville) have moved from a 44-inch standard to a 5-foot paved pathway to ensure unobstructed access. Several participants proposed a compromise that recognizes both design and operational constraints: a 36-inch (3-foot) clear path for straight segments with a wider (approximately 5-foot) clear radius at turns to permit gurney maneuvering.

Others urged caution about adopting a single statewide numeric minimum without technical justification. Micah asked that the committee be shown the specific code sections that would be changed and an analysis of how an explicit dimension would interact with the IRC/IBC, fire code, and local zoning. He said he had not seen the required code-section evaluation in the petition and warned that means-of-egress and site-planning language is already dispersed across multiple codes.

Several members argued the root of the problem is overlapping jurisdiction and local process. Jay Arnold said he did not see this as principally a building-code issue “because it's addressed elsewhere,” pointing to the Department of Commerce model middle-housing code (which includes a 5-foot setback where jurisdictions rely on the model). Others, including Todd Biver, favored memorializing the committee's technical concerns and educating local planners and designers rather than pursuing preemption or emergency rules.

As the discussion drew to a close, the committee reached a procedural outcome. Todd Biver moved that staff prepare a letter to the council summarizing the committee's conclusions and recommending no state rulemaking at this time; the motion was seconded, the committee voted in favor and the motion passed. Dustin (staff) said he would draft the response and synthesize the day's conversation for the council.

Votes at a glance:
- Approve agenda: motion made and seconded; vote passed (ayes recorded; no opposition noted).
- Approve minutes: motion (Todd) and second (Jay); vote passed (ayes recorded; no opposition noted).
- Direct staff to prepare response letter with recommendation of no rulemaking (motion by Todd Biver): motion seconded; vote passed (ayes recorded; no opposition noted).

The meeting closed after the committee agreed it had reached the limits of what the state board should do immediately and that future changes should be advanced through the regular code development or local code/jurisdictional proposals.