• 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

ADA commentary

M

Mark Sigler

Registered User
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
15
Location
West Coast
I realize that the commentary portions of the codes we enforce are not code, however they do provide support and a rational for the code sections. In this particular case I have a project that is a new Fire Station with sleeping quarters for emergency response personnel. They are asking to omit the grab bars and shower seats within the crew quarters but to put the reinforcement in the walls so as to permit their installation at a later date as needed. Again IBC Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1 are not the ADA in its' entirety, I realize this, but what are the opinions out there regarding allowing this?

The following excerpt is the point of discussion and taken from the commentary to 28 CFR 35.151 Title II regulation.

"The comments about the application of transient lodging or residential standards to social service center establishments, and housing at a place of education are addressed separately below. The Department
received one additional comment on this issue from an organization representing emergency response personnel seeking an exemption from the transient lodging accessibility requirements for crew quarters
and common use areas serving those crew quarters (e.g., locker rooms, exercise rooms, day room) that are used exclusively by on-duty emergency response personnel and that are not used for any public purpose. The commenter argued that since emergency response personnel must meet certain physical qualifications that have the effect of exempting persons with mobility disabilities, there is no need to build crew quarters and common use areas serving those crew quarters to meet the 2004 ADAAG. In addition, the commenter

argued that applying the transient lodging standards would impose significant costs and create living space that is less usable for most emergency response personnel.

The ADA does not exempt spaces because of a belief or policy that excludes persons with disabilities from certain work. However, the Department believes that crew quarters that are used exclusively as a residence by emergency response personnel and the kitchens and bathrooms exclusively serving those quarters are more like residential dwelling units and are therefore covered by the residential dwelling standards in the 2010 Standards, not the transient lodging standards.

The residential dwelling standards address most of the concerns of the commenter. For example, the commenter was concerned that sinks in kitchens and lavatories in bathrooms that are accessible under the transient lodging standards would be too low to be comfortably used by emergency response personnel. The residential dwelling standards allow such features to be adaptable so that they would not have to be lowered until accessibility was needed. Similarly, grab bars and shower seats would not have to be installed at the time of construction provided that reinforcement has been installed in walls and located so as to permit their installation at a later date."

All constructive comment welcomed.

Thank you,
Sigs
 
Makes sense. As a compromise, why not create one accessible restroom with accessible shower.
 
Only speaking from an IBC/A117.1 perspective here....

I'd put forth that a dwelling area of a fire station is an R-2 occupancy. Given that, I'd follow Section 1107.6.2.3 (below) and require one accessible unit (for up to 25 dwelling units) and that the balance be Type B units (if more than 4 total).

The Type B units would need to comply with A117.1 Section 1004. This would permit the installation of more typical type amenities and fixtures, while allowing for possible future conversion and enhancements if necessitated.

This approach nets a response very similar to that of the quote in the OP.



1107.6.2.3 Group R-2 Other Than Live/Work Units, Apartment Houses, Monasteries and Convents
In Group R-2 occupancies, other than live/work units, apartment houses, monasteries and convents falling within the scope of Sections 1107.6.2.1 and 1107.6.2.2, accessible units and Type B units shall be provided in accordance with Sections 1107.6.2.2.1 and 1107.6.2.2.2. Bedrooms within congregate living facilities shall be counted as sleeping units for the purpose of determining the number of units. Where the sleeping units are grouped into suites, only one sleeping unit in each suite shall be permitted to count towards the number of required accessible units. Accessible units shall be dispersed among the various classes of units, as described in Section 1107.6.

1107.6.2.3.1 Accessible Units
Accessible dwelling units and sleeping units shall be provided in accordance with Table 1107.6.1.1.

1107.6.2.3.2 Type B Units
Where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units intended to be occupied as a residence in a single structure, every dwelling unit and every sleeping unit intended to be occupied as a residence shall be a Type B unit.
Exception: The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.

​
1107.6.1.1 Accessible Units
Accessible dwelling units and sleeping units shall be provided in accordance with Table 1107.6.1.1. Where buildings contain more than 50 dwelling units or sleeping units, the number of Accessible units shall be determined per building. Where buildings contain 50 or fewer dwelling units or sleeping units, all dwelling units and sleeping units on a site shall be considered to determine the total number of Accessible units. Accessible units shall be dispersed among the various classes of units.

TABLE 1107.6.1.1 ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS

upload_2019-11-19_14-27-31.png
(table paraphrased)​
 
Last edited:
The dorm area is closer to a residence than a place of business. Business implies doing work, producing something.
 
& ~ & ~ &

Mark Sigler,

I had this very scenario in a former employment position.
The Fire Chief and I went round and round about ADA
compliance in Crew Quarters \ Restroom areas........He
agreed to having the grab bars installed in the required
ADA toilet stalls, but refused the Shower requirement.
His reasoning was that the Crew Quarter Showers
were for "able bodied personnel ONLY".........He made
the statement that if a lawsuit ever came up, that he
was O.K. with having the "people in the black robes to
decide".

I believe there is legal precendence & justification to
having ONLY "able bodied personnel" using the Showers.
Much like the exemption that "able bodied military personnel"
get..........We never did install grab bars in the Crew Showers !

& ~ & ~ &
 
Tread lightly, the Access Board has issued over a half dozen interpretations specifically addressing Fire Stations. The jest of ALL the interpretations is that the station and sleeping quarters MUST meet the ADA. The “abled bodied” argument has been floating around for decades (with no basis), an example might be the live-in Fire Chief is partially (hopefully not permanently) disabled on the job, what then, your no longer “able bodied”, too bad, move out. Extreme, but you can see the big FLAW in the bogus “able-bodied” argument.

Just my thoughts,

Ken
 
Why do people put some much time and effort into trying to avoid a code requirement? I can see not putting numerous accessible showers in. How many showers are we talking about, maybe 5, and to have 2 with grab bars and seats in, for the cost of the in the total project this expense is minor.
 
And a fire fighter never gets banged up a little while performing their duties that might want or need a shower before seeking medical treatment.
 
TheCommish said:
Why do people put some much time and effort into trying to avoid a code requirement?
Click to expand...
The codes are well intentioned, but they assume the owner has unlimited funds and is willing to give up operational space to use for infrastructure. In this case, give up dorm space to accomodate large restrooms and shower facilities. Or have a small building footprint to allow for wide parking spaces, ramps, setbacks etc. Owners try to maximize the building size and minimize unusable space on a lot, and many times the various codes and requirements fight against that.

But ... some times the plan approvers don’t consider real life situations. In my town a developer built a strip center on a Narrow piece of property, and marketed the space to fast food restaurants. So now we have about 8 or 10 restaurants who naturally all have peak periods at the same time. Apparently the plan reviewers had blinders on and didn’t consider how many cars would try to park there at the same time. There are 1 or 2 non-food businesses and they really struggle to have parking spaces for their customers.
 
And what is to say that it will always be a fire station. Could transition into another use without a change of occupancy. Able bodied fire fighters may no longer be the intended residents.
 
Thank you to all for the thoughtful responses. I don't disagree that the code does require the features to be installed and that they are a minor expense in the overall cost of the project.

Ken-
I am interested in your comments about the determinations by the access board regarding fire stations. Any chance you can direct me to links regarding these determinations? I searched a bit and have been unsuccessful so far. I think I'm just not familiar with their site to find the right spot to search or maybe it's a wording issue with my search. Their site is massive.

Thank you,
Sigs
 
Ken-

Thank you again for your efforts. The link is broken for me but at least you gave me a starting point.

Thank you,
Sigs
 
e hilton said:
The codes are well intentioned, but they assume the owner has unlimited funds and is willing to give up operational space to use for infrastructure. In this case, give up dorm space to accomodate large restrooms and shower facilities. Or have a small building footprint to allow for wide parking spaces, ramps, setbacks etc. Owners try to maximize the building size and minimize unusable space on a lot, and many times the various codes and requirements fight against that.

But ... some times the plan approvers don’t consider real life situations. In my town a developer built a strip center on a Narrow piece of property, and marketed the space to fast food restaurants. So now we have about 8 or 10 restaurants who naturally all have peak periods at the same time. Apparently the plan reviewers had blinders on and didn’t consider how many cars would try to park there at the same time. There are 1 or 2 non-food businesses and they really struggle to have parking spaces for their customers.
Click to expand...

A "zoning" issue, not a code issue. Many corners (formerly gas stations) were spld to strip developers and the same thing happened. Unintended consequence or forseeable or just allowable due to lack of oversight?
 
khsmith55 said:
Sorry Sigs, had to "separate" the link. Try this.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/americans-disabilities-act-technical-assistance-letters-41
Click to expand...

Going to that page and doing a browser search with the word "fire", it seems the general interpretations are:
1. Fire stations are government facilities that are subject to Title II of ADA.
2. To the extent that existing fire stations provide PROGRAMS to the public ("visit our firehouse today!"), those programs must be made ADA accessible, now. That may, or may not, require physical changes to the areas accessed by the public in order for persons with disabilities to participate in the program.
3. For existing firehouses that do not have any programs accessible to the public, ADA does not - in itself - compel physical changes for the firefighting personnel, however:
4. If the fire station is new construction, or if an existing fire station has an addition, alteration or remodel, then as a government facility it will be subject to the ADAS requirements for new construction or for additions, alterations or remodel, respectively. Thus, a new or remodeled shower would require accessible features such as grab bars. See https://www.justice.gov/crt/foia/readingroom/frequent_requests/ada_tal/tal194.txt
5. Note that ADA Title I for employment discrimination is a separate issue, and "reasonable accommodation" of an employee with a disability may supersede the comment in #3 above.

Our local fire station was originally built years ago, when all the firefighters were male. It was recently remodeled to provide a single accommodation shower/toilet because the department has hired a female firefighter, and that new restroom and shower had to be made fully accessible (grab bars, seat, etc.), along with path-of-travel, etc.

It is worth noting that the showers at the fire station are not exclusively for the use of people who are sleeping at the station. A firefighter on a non-overnight shift can take a shower after responding to a fire, then leave when their shift is over. Thus the shower is not purely a "residential dwelling unit shower".
 
Last edited:
All "great" points, not all firefighters and staff are necessarily physically endowed or need to be, many in-station (overnight) positions can be filled by those less able bodied. Also note that there are still many volunteer firehouses.
 
If the firefighters somehow find the presence of a grab bar offensive to their own sense of physical prowess, just tell the firefighters it is a "washcloth rack"... or tell them it is for barre exercise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top