• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Doors required to be accessible, or not?

Good man, finally a man with guts.
Conarb... his point is that the ADA is not a building code, ICC Standard A117.1 is.

Don't get yourself all wound up and excited. Many of us do the same as Rick; cross out ADA and write in A117.1.
 
We all agree that ADA is not a code but it is the law of the land. If your state chooses to "ignore" the law by not addressing it in its code then owners may be subject to federal and/or state law suits in the future. It is up to their designers to address code items that do not comply with minimum ADA Standards which may exceed A117.1 or ICC Ch 11.
Stop fighting it, it is not rocket science to comply,
 
If the designers do their job then the owners will not be subject to a federal lawsuit regardless of what the state or local AHJ require.

There are many federal laws that cannot be enforced at the local level. ADA is just one of them.
 
Woe to he who adheres to "code minimum" without considering all the "other" rules & regs too.
 
When ADA first became law our county attorney instructed us that we could not require a builder to comply with it. However whatever the architect specs and drawings specified we are obligated to inspect to those drawings and specifications even if they went over and above the code minimum.
So again it is not my responsibility to require your design to adhere to all the various accessibility laws that are out there for a specific project. It is my job to make sure the project is constructed to your design.

Every new commercial project will have an architect stamped drawing that we will review under ANSI, not under Fair Housing and not under ADA and not under any federal monies restrictions like site visitability requirements.

Montana does not provide a way for attorneys and others to profit from non-compliant accessibility requirements like CA, and FL states do.

Woe to he who adheres to "code minimum" without considering all the "other" rules & regs too.
I assume you are referring to the designers since the AHJ can only review drawings under the rules they have adopted and not the "other" rules and regs that are out there.
 
CA's was an unintended consequence of a law that predated the ADA and our code. They write laws in CA and then they take years to develop the implimenting regulations with which to administer them. Yes, they opened the flood gates and the gold still flows through into the "pockets" of plaintiff's counsel.
 
Simple it is a federal requirement so you file complaints with the feds under their rules which limit monetary damages for violations.
 
Then you have added another burden of regulations a designer has to follow in addition the the many others out there.
No, what i meant was, can the very ethical lawyer file suit against the state regulations rather than federal, to get around the federal restrictions? Or if a city has their own requirements.
 
My understanding is you can file a civil lawsuit against anyone for any reason at any time so I guess the answer is yes. Will you prevail when you have not exercised all other legal options 1st such as filing a complaint with the DOJ. I am not an attorney and do not know the answer
 
Remember ANSI is a building code standard and as such is under the AHJ to determine if compliance is met where as the ADA is civil rights and nobody can make exceptions to that except how a court rules.

And the state of Montana has this language
(23) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.

So under ANSI I could approve a WC that is 18.5 inches from the wall to the center line of the WC or a tub opening that is only 59.5 inches clear opening instead of the required 60 inch minimum width but under ADA this would not be permitted

So would someone prevail in a MT local/state court where the BO gave a certificate of occupancy when these "minor" violation posed no "imminent threat" to their safety or welfare? Who knows
 
The "low hanging" fruit in Montana is not as attractive to the "suits" unless it is a large statewide chain or a government agency that a disabled person cannot access for services, or a courthouse. Maybe then it would rise to a level where DOJ might choose to focus resources on it.
 
Remember ANSI is a building code standard and as such is under the AHJ to determine if compliance is met where as the ADA is civil rights and nobody can make exceptions to that except how a court rules.

And the state of Montana has this language
(23) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.

So under ANSI I could approve a WC that is 18.5 inches from the wall to the center line of the WC or a tub opening that is only 59.5 inches clear opening instead of the required 60 inch minimum width but under ADA this would not be permitted

So would someone prevail in a MT local/state court where the BO gave a certificate of occupancy when these "minor" violation posed no "imminent threat" to their safety or welfare? Who knows

wel·fare
/ˈwelˌfer/
Learn to pronounce
noun
  1. the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
    "they don't give a damn about the welfare of their families"
    synonyms: well-being, health, good health, happiness, comfort, security, safety, protection, prosperity, profit, good, success, fortune, good fortune, advantage, interest, prosperousness, successfulness
    "local authorities have a duty to promote the welfare of children"
    • statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.
      "the protection of rights to education, housing, and welfare"
It's seems to me that any of the things you say you could approve would affect the welfare of some people especially if they are handicapped.
 
We all agree that ADA is not a code but it is the law of the land. If your state chooses to "ignore" the law by not addressing it in its code then owners may be subject to federal and/or state law suits in the future. It is up to their designers to address code items that do not comply with minimum ADA Standards which may exceed A117.1 or ICC Ch 11.
Stop fighting it, it is not rocket science to comply,

ADAguy, who are you addressing when you say "stop fighting it"? It is not within a local building official's jurisdiction to fight it, nor to comply with it.
Yes but, does your code align with the minimum provisions of ADASAD 2010 or only ANSI 117.1?
The system is working exactly as it is supposed to when "It is up to their designers to address code items that do not comply with minimum ADA Standards which may exceed A117.1 or ICC Ch 11."

If the local code aligns with it, it is a convenience for the applicant, but not a necessity.
I would also add that if you give the illusion that your local code complies 100% with ADA, or that you are plan-checking 100% for ADA, you may be doing a disservice to your customer by lulling them into a false sense of security.
Better to give them the disclaimer as noted in other posts above.

Now, what were we saying about doors? ;)
 
Last edited:
That door hardware (for T-II & T-III, ) should be accessible, as in "no knobs, operable without special knowledge or effort" is that too difficult to do/understand?
 
Really, do you honestly think 1/2 inch will make a difference if a WC or tub can be used or not? Or that it will hinder the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
I have no trouble explaining my decisions that do not line up exactly with the code requirements. However those same decisions when accused of violating an individuals civil rights will probably never stand up and that is the main reason I am a strong believer in it is not my responsibility or am I authorization under federal law to enforce ADA, FHA or OSHA regulations. Am I responsible to inform owners contractors and designers of the other rules and regulations that may effect their project.
Absolutely,
http://www.montanafairhousing.org/newsletters_press/2003/nov03.pdf

Webster 1824 dictioanary
Welfare

WELFARE, noun [well and fare, a good faring; G.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.
 
Really, do you honestly think 1/2 inch will make a difference if a WC or tub can be used or not?

I work for a large organization. We are going through all the facilities with a 93 page ada checklist, looking for any and everything. Several facilities have the wc 18-1/2" off the side wall. We are adding a layer of 5/8 gwb and reinstalling the grabbars to bring them into compliance.
 
It is odd you mention you work for a large corporation using an ADA checklist.
We had an hotel that was built a few years ago and corporate sent their own people out and had to redo I think it was 6 ADA rooms because of a 59.5 inch clear opening for the tubs. I am sure they found a couple of other items also.
The tubs where located between a 2 hour shaft and the 1-hour partition wall. I do not remember the details of the fix but it was a nightmare to meet the ADA minimum requirement and maintain the fire ratings all because of a 2010 consent decree with the DOJ
 
That door hardware (for T-II & T-III, ) should be accessible, as in "no knobs, operable without special knowledge or effort" is that too difficult to do/understand?
Your question of feasibility and comprehension appears to be a different than your original post, where the original question was:
  • "Name any and all doors covered by ADA, CBC 11b or ICC 11 that are not required to be accessible other than those with exceptions"
And the response and examples in posts #2,6,9,11,18 was basically: There are many doors that area allowed in CBC/IBC that are not covered by ADA, CBC 11b or ICC 11, and those doors don't need to be accessible.
Listing all the types and conditions of doors not covered by ADA, CBC 11b or ICC 11 would be an endless task, because the list includes any door on a route that is not required to be accessible by ADA, CBC 11b or ICC 11.

As to your second question: I don't think a requirement for "operable without special knowledge or effort" exists in ADA T-II or T-III, CBC 11b or ICC 11.
 
Top