• 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

at least they tried

And the rear bar... Probably the seat height... definitely the paper dispenser

Cove base? Could even be the Slip Coefficiency of the tile?
 
They even missed the flush valve
Click to expand...
Depends on the adopted code at the time of installation

ANSI A117.1 2003

604.6 Flush Controls.

Flush controls shall be hand operated or automatic. Hand operated flush controls shall comply with Section 309. Flush controls shall be located on the open side of the water closet.

1998

604.6 Flush Controls.

Flush controls shall be hand operated or automatic. Hand-operated flush controls shall comply with Section 309.
 
Curious is this a Doctor's office?

She just walked in and asked me to remove that bar across the back of the toilet. "That thing has got to go" she said.Yeah, great. Now I'm arguing letting her know that is required for ADA. She is an RN and,…..well, not happy. Sheeeshhh
Click to expand...
 
Missing the paper cowboy hat dispenser and magazine holder!

This is where most BO's and inspector's do there thinking! I leave my do-nut and coffee in my cubicle!

pc1
 
First question I have is 'What do the plans show?'.

Second question I have is 'How soon will they have it corrected?'

I'd rate it a 'close but no cigar'. Since it is neither horseshoes nor hand grenades, close doesn't count.
 
JBI said:
First question I have is 'What do the plans show?'.Second question I have is 'How soon will they have it corrected?'

I'd rate it a 'close but no cigar'. Since it is neither horseshoes nor hand grenades, close doesn't count.
Click to expand...
Plans? You are really funny. Plans….. LOL

for that matter, what permit?
 
at least they tried

Francis Vineyard said:
Au contraire even when it is in compliance one size doesn't fit all.
Click to expand...
4de1957c0ac227275011fffc944a478b.jpg


Look for it under fata55es soon.

Brent

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MASSDRIVER said:
4de1957c0ac227275011fffc944a478b.jpg
Look for it under fata55es soon.

Brent

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
"Danger, Danger, Danger; Will Robinson"

If that arrangement is used with a +++++ sized person structural failure of the seat and/or the toilet is likely. Vitrified clay is not intended for tension on the hold down bolts, just alignment and if normal toilet seat material-- the wings would likely break off either of which would result in the potential for significant injury.
 
I always had a problem with existing restrooms. If the plans show an existing restroom where they are paiting, tileing, new fixtures and it's not marked as an existing accessible restroom and they don't need to change it to an accessible restroom. Then they put a grab bar up or a new high toilet does it have to comply with accessiblity codes?
 
Rick18071, It all starts with the Codes adopted by your jurisdiction.

For example NYS adopted (a modified version of) the Existing Building Code, so that is where I would start the review process.

Pennsylvania adopted both the EBC and Chapter 34 of the IBC (one of 3 compliance options in the EBC) at one time, leaving the choice for which to use up to the applicant. Once you establish the governing document it tells you what must comply and when. For the work area method in the EBC, the scope of work dictates which chapters apply. The more work that is proposed, the greater the burden of compliance (a very reasonable approach IMO). Repairs and alteration level one work will have minimal requirements, while a change of occupancy or level 3 alteration will likely require more.

Generally anything added would need to comply, so your example would require both a compliant fixture and compliant grab bars. (If you make it look like a duck, make sure it quacks like a duck)
 
You mean if they put in grab bars in an a restroom that is not accessible it need to comply with accessiblity codes?

3411.6 Alterations. A building, facility or element that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of this code and ICC A117.1, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.

Exceptions:

1. The altered element or space is not required to be on an accessible route, unless required by Section 3411.7.

I don't think so.
 
Rick18071 said:
You mean if they put in grab bars in an a restroom that is not accessible it need to comply with accessiblity codes?3411.6 Alterations. A building, facility or element that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of this code and ICC A117.1, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.

Exceptions:

1. The altered element or space is not required to be on an accessible route, unless required by Section 3411.7.

I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Rick, my interpretation of that section says is accessible facilities are required even if they are not on an accessible route. The exception is section 3411.7 requires having the route as applicable. The intent is to have accessible facilities present when the route becomes avaliable.

JBI's last comment to my knowledge is backed up by section 3411.8.11 (in accordance with section 1109.2) alterations to existing facilities shall be accessible unless technically infeasible.
 
Thanks for the back up Francis... I was getting back to it when I read your post. NYS hasn't used Chapter 34 since 2007 as we adopted a modified EBC then. Similar language can be found there, depending on the scope of the work. I may not like or agree with a code provision but that does not give me the authority to ignore it. :/
 
conarb, if Americans were not so needlessly wasteful there would be less/no need for these regulations.

If humans did not allow their communities to grow beyond their ability to provide for their own necessities then perhaps we would not need the current scope of regulation. Once upon a time most Americans were frugal about things like water use and electricity and fossil fuels.

Our own collective gluttony has caused the problems.

California wisely restricts water usage more than most other states in the nation - there is a clear and present danger to not conserving, that would substantially, adversely affect the health safety and welfare of the people of the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top