A tenant improvement permit has been applied for a nail salon. They are adding pedicure chairs and are proposing to construct a platform under the chairs. It seems at least one of these chairs should be accessible i.e. not up on the platform, clear floor space, etc. What code reference would you use in 2006 IBC Ch 11 to require this?
-
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
Accessible pedicure chair?
- Thread starter JMG
- Start date
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
ANSI 901 General
901.1 Scope.
Built-in furnishings and equipment required to be accessible by the scoping provisions adopted by the administrative authority shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 9.
see scoping requirements in the IBC Section 1103
ANSI 901 General
901.1 Scope.
Built-in furnishings and equipment required to be accessible by the scoping provisions adopted by the administrative authority shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 9.
see scoping requirements in the IBC Section 1103
alora
Silver Member
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
On one I did for a client, I just added a 60"x60" clear floor area for a wheelchair to park so that the pedicurist could just do the work while the person was in his/her chair. Building official bought off on it.
On one I did for a client, I just added a 60"x60" clear floor area for a wheelchair to park so that the pedicurist could just do the work while the person was in his/her chair. Building official bought off on it.
JBI
Registered User
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
2006 IBC
SECTION 1103 SCOPING REQUIREMENTS
1103.1 Where required.
Sites, buildings, structures, facilities, elements and spaces, temporary or permanent, shall be accessible to persons with physical disabilities.
1109.11 Seating at tables, counters and work surfaces.
Where seating or standing space at fixed or built-in tables, counters or work surfaces is provided in accessible spaces, at least 5 percent of the seating and standing spaces, but not less than one, shall be accessible. In Group I-3 occupancy visiting areas at least 5 percent, but not less than one, cubicle or counter shall be accessible on both the visitor and detainee sides.
Exceptions:
1. Check-writing surfaces at check-out aisles not required to comply with Section 1109.12.2 are not required to be accessible.
2. In Group I-3 occupancies, the counter or cubicle on the detainee side is not required to be accessible at noncontact visiting areas or in areas not serving accessible holding cells or sleeping units.
1109.11.1 Dispersion.
Accessible fixed or built-in seating at tables, counters or work surfaces shall be distributed throughout the space or facility containing such elements.
1109.12 Service facilities.
Service facilities shall provide for accessible features in accordance with Sections 1109.12.1 through 1109.12.5.
1109.12.3 Point of sale and service counters.
Where counters are provided for sales or distribution of goods or services, at least one of each type provided shall be accessible. Where such counters are dispersed throughout the building or facility, accessible counters shall also be dispersed.
I know they don't list 'pedicure stations', but I believe there is enough there to say at least one shall be accessible.
2006 IBC
SECTION 1103 SCOPING REQUIREMENTS
1103.1 Where required.
Sites, buildings, structures, facilities, elements and spaces, temporary or permanent, shall be accessible to persons with physical disabilities.
1109.11 Seating at tables, counters and work surfaces.
Where seating or standing space at fixed or built-in tables, counters or work surfaces is provided in accessible spaces, at least 5 percent of the seating and standing spaces, but not less than one, shall be accessible. In Group I-3 occupancy visiting areas at least 5 percent, but not less than one, cubicle or counter shall be accessible on both the visitor and detainee sides.
Exceptions:
1. Check-writing surfaces at check-out aisles not required to comply with Section 1109.12.2 are not required to be accessible.
2. In Group I-3 occupancies, the counter or cubicle on the detainee side is not required to be accessible at noncontact visiting areas or in areas not serving accessible holding cells or sleeping units.
1109.11.1 Dispersion.
Accessible fixed or built-in seating at tables, counters or work surfaces shall be distributed throughout the space or facility containing such elements.
1109.12 Service facilities.
Service facilities shall provide for accessible features in accordance with Sections 1109.12.1 through 1109.12.5.
1109.12.3 Point of sale and service counters.
Where counters are provided for sales or distribution of goods or services, at least one of each type provided shall be accessible. Where such counters are dispersed throughout the building or facility, accessible counters shall also be dispersed.
I know they don't list 'pedicure stations', but I believe there is enough there to say at least one shall be accessible.
alora
Silver Member
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
We already addressed that in the initial plan review submittal by providing a movable reclining chair. The building official just wanted the area to be enlarged to 60"x60".
Hey B --brudgers said:
We already addressed that in the initial plan review submittal by providing a movable reclining chair. The building official just wanted the area to be enlarged to 60"x60".
JBI
Registered User
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
AND, Building Officials (with limited exceptions) don't enforce ADAAG, nor do they (with limited exceptions) have the authority to enforce ADAAG.
We do however have the authority to enforce the Codes adopted in our jursisdictions, which typically include Accessibility provisions (see Chapter 11 of the IBC).
Referenced standard in I-Codes and MOST jurisdictions is ICC/ANSI A117.1. (NYS uses the 2003 version)
AND, Building Officials (with limited exceptions) don't enforce ADAAG, nor do they (with limited exceptions) have the authority to enforce ADAAG.
We do however have the authority to enforce the Codes adopted in our jursisdictions, which typically include Accessibility provisions (see Chapter 11 of the IBC).
Referenced standard in I-Codes and MOST jurisdictions is ICC/ANSI A117.1. (NYS uses the 2003 version)
alora
Silver Member
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
With ADAAG, it may not necessarily be building officials you would need to be concerned about. Two terms come to mind ... HSW & lawsuit.John Drobysh said:
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
Regardless building officials are responsible for whatever civil rights violations they permit in their jurisdictions.
And of course relying on ICC/Ansi a117.1 is done at one's own risk, since it is not DOJ certified and therefore not a safe harbor.
My dear friend alora is not a building official.John Drobysh said:
Regardless building officials are responsible for whatever civil rights violations they permit in their jurisdictions.
And of course relying on ICC/Ansi a117.1 is done at one's own risk, since it is not DOJ certified and therefore not a safe harbor.
JBI
Registered User
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
brudgers - Too bad you don't understand the concept of authority and jurisdiction. Maybe I can help...
Unless specifically authorized to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act (that's the law by the way, ADAAG is a guideline), local Code Officials have neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to enforce it. The sole responsibility for enforcement of ADA (typically) falls to the United States Department of Justice.
The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guideline (ADAAG) is actually based on the ANSI standard (thanks to Genebko for strightening me out on that
). Per the ADA:
Design Prefessionals are required to design to ADAAG as a minimum standard;
Property owners are responsible for compliance on their properties (including local
Government on property they own or control);
The Federal Government is responsible for enforcement of the provisions.
Local Code Officials are only required to enforce the Codes adopted by the jurisdiction. Not many have adopted ADA as locally enforceable. There are however provisions in the I-Codes and most State Building Codes that are at least as restrictive as the ADA requirements and the ADAAG provisions, and some that are more restrictive.
A little clearer now?
brudgers - Too bad you don't understand the concept of authority and jurisdiction. Maybe I can help...
Unless specifically authorized to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act (that's the law by the way, ADAAG is a guideline), local Code Officials have neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to enforce it. The sole responsibility for enforcement of ADA (typically) falls to the United States Department of Justice.
The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guideline (ADAAG) is actually based on the ANSI standard (thanks to Genebko for strightening me out on that
). Per the ADA:Design Prefessionals are required to design to ADAAG as a minimum standard;
Property owners are responsible for compliance on their properties (including local
Government on property they own or control);
The Federal Government is responsible for enforcement of the provisions.
Local Code Officials are only required to enforce the Codes adopted by the jurisdiction. Not many have adopted ADA as locally enforceable. There are however provisions in the I-Codes and most State Building Codes that are at least as restrictive as the ADA requirements and the ADAAG provisions, and some that are more restrictive.
A little clearer now?
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
Once upon a time in another life, a city attorney and I briefly discussed the limitations of sovereign immunity as related to Title III of the ADA.
My recollection is that fostering the violation of another person's civil rights exposes one to liability even if done so as part of one's employment with a municipality.
Something along the lines of, "I was only following orders," not being recommended as the basis of a sound defense.
The fact that A117.1 is not DOJ certified after nearly 20 years, is but another example of the cluster of flops that is the ICC.
As for who is missing what, my dear friend Alora and I are responsible for meeting both the local code and complying with ADAAG.
We're not in a business that allows us to brush off civil rights violations with, "not my job."
Personally, I would be disappointed in myself if I could do such a thing.
Once upon a time in another life, a city attorney and I briefly discussed the limitations of sovereign immunity as related to Title III of the ADA.
My recollection is that fostering the violation of another person's civil rights exposes one to liability even if done so as part of one's employment with a municipality.
Something along the lines of, "I was only following orders," not being recommended as the basis of a sound defense.
The fact that A117.1 is not DOJ certified after nearly 20 years, is but another example of the cluster of flops that is the ICC.
As for who is missing what, my dear friend Alora and I are responsible for meeting both the local code and complying with ADAAG.
We're not in a business that allows us to brush off civil rights violations with, "not my job."
Personally, I would be disappointed in myself if I could do such a thing.
JBI
Registered User
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
brudgers - I think you are still confused.
No-one (least of all me) is proposing the "...fostering the violation of another person's civil rights...". All I am (trying) to point out is that the local Code Official has no obligation, right or responsibility to enforce the ADA, or to mandate compliance with ADAAG. Just as a Police Officer has no authority to enforce the Building Code. One must look to the legislation in order to determine who has enforcement authority, in this case it is the DOJ.
Blaming the ICC for the ANSI standard not being 'certified' by the DOJ is misplaced blame (at best). The ICC has existed for less than half the time the standard OR ADA have been in existence. There are many faults to be found in the ICC and what it has/has not accomplished, this isn't one of them.
Seems to me you're more interested in being argumentative than accurate. Too bad.
brudgers - I think you are still confused.
No-one (least of all me) is proposing the "...fostering the violation of another person's civil rights...". All I am (trying) to point out is that the local Code Official has no obligation, right or responsibility to enforce the ADA, or to mandate compliance with ADAAG. Just as a Police Officer has no authority to enforce the Building Code. One must look to the legislation in order to determine who has enforcement authority, in this case it is the DOJ.
Blaming the ICC for the ANSI standard not being 'certified' by the DOJ is misplaced blame (at best). The ICC has existed for less than half the time the standard OR ADA have been in existence. There are many faults to be found in the ICC and what it has/has not accomplished, this isn't one of them.
Seems to me you're more interested in being argumentative than accurate. Too bad.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
III-8.0000 ENFORCEMENT
Regulatory references: 28 CFR 36.501-36.508.
III-8.1000 General. The ADA establishes two avenues for enforcement of the requirements of title III --
1) Private suits by individuals who are being subjected to discrimination or who have reasonable grounds for believing that they are about to be subjected to discrimination.
2) Suits by the Department of Justice, whenever it has reasonable cause to believe that there is a pattern or practice of discrimination, or discrimination that raises an issue of general public importance. The Department will investigate complaints and conduct compliance reviews of covered entities.
Do State or local civil rights agencies have any role in enforcing title III? There is no provision for State or local civil rights agencies to directly enforce title III of the ADA. They can, however, enforce State or local laws that incorporate the standards of the ADA, or they can set up alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (see III-8.6000).
III-8.0000 ENFORCEMENT
Regulatory references: 28 CFR 36.501-36.508.
III-8.1000 General. The ADA establishes two avenues for enforcement of the requirements of title III --
1) Private suits by individuals who are being subjected to discrimination or who have reasonable grounds for believing that they are about to be subjected to discrimination.
2) Suits by the Department of Justice, whenever it has reasonable cause to believe that there is a pattern or practice of discrimination, or discrimination that raises an issue of general public importance. The Department will investigate complaints and conduct compliance reviews of covered entities.
Do State or local civil rights agencies have any role in enforcing title III? There is no provision for State or local civil rights agencies to directly enforce title III of the ADA. They can, however, enforce State or local laws that incorporate the standards of the ADA, or they can set up alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (see III-8.6000).
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
Your not obligated to enforce ADA.
However, if you permit non-compliant construction in your jurisdiction you don't have sovereign immunity.
If you are in a situation where you can only enforce A117.1, then you are exposed.
That's why there is provision for accessibility codes to be certified by the DOJ.
As for the excuses...ADA was signed into law in 1990.
Since then there have been three version of A117.1 (1992, 1998, 2003).
The ICC has had their name on the last two, and of course they could have developed a compliant standard on their own
It's pretty darn simple.
All it takes is looking at a certified code to see that.
And that same look will explain why they don't.
A certified code would reduce sales of their code.
You seem more interested in belittling me than listening.John Drobysh said:
Your not obligated to enforce ADA.
However, if you permit non-compliant construction in your jurisdiction you don't have sovereign immunity.
If you are in a situation where you can only enforce A117.1, then you are exposed.
That's why there is provision for accessibility codes to be certified by the DOJ.
As for the excuses...ADA was signed into law in 1990.
Since then there have been three version of A117.1 (1992, 1998, 2003).
The ICC has had their name on the last two, and of course they could have developed a compliant standard on their own
It's pretty darn simple.
All it takes is looking at a certified code to see that.
And that same look will explain why they don't.
A certified code would reduce sales of their code.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
Yes brudger in Alabama you are charged with enforcing the ADA in your jurisdiction
However your own state will not review for ADA unless there is goverment funding for the project
I believe our responsibility as code officials is to inform and note that the owner/designer needs to comply with ADA or Fair Housing for their project. The liabilty and/or exposure would come in approving such projects as compling with those regulations
http://www.bc.state.al.us/buildingcode.htm
ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The Commission’s responsibility to review plans and specifications for compliance with accessibility standards applies only to buildings and facilities used by the public which are constructed in whole or in part by the use of state, county, or municipal funds, or the funds of any political subdivision of the state. See Title 21-4-6 for jurisdiction shared with the State Fire Marshall
Yes brudger in Alabama you are charged with enforcing the ADA in your jurisdiction
However your own state will not review for ADA unless there is goverment funding for the project
I believe our responsibility as code officials is to inform and note that the owner/designer needs to comply with ADA or Fair Housing for their project. The liabilty and/or exposure would come in approving such projects as compling with those regulations
http://www.bc.state.al.us/buildingcode.htm
ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The Commission’s responsibility to review plans and specifications for compliance with accessibility standards applies only to buildings and facilities used by the public which are constructed in whole or in part by the use of state, county, or municipal funds, or the funds of any political subdivision of the state. See Title 21-4-6 for jurisdiction shared with the State Fire Marshall
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
The statewide building code in Alabama is not under the Building Commission.
It's under the Fire Marshall's office...a nice guy, I spoke to him myself just to make sure I was reading the law correctly.
The building commission only oversees building built with state funds.
The building code wherever there is not a locally adopted code is SBC 1997. The life safety code is NFPA 2006.
For a variety of reasons, I doubt you'll see any version of the IBC adopted by the State Fire Marshall's office any time soon.
Here in the Bible belt churches with occupant loads greater than 300 and no municipal water service are not uncommon.
SBC and NFPA draw the same line for mandatory sprinklers - more than 1000, provided that fixed seating is used.
My personal opinion is that if experience had proven to be dangerous, the NFPA would have removed the provision long ago.
Anyway, I'm not charged with enforcing anything in my jurisdiction. Firstly because I don't have a jurisdiction and secondly because I'm no longer in the enforcement business (and haven't been for quite a while).
On the other hand, I am, like my dear friend Alora, in the compliance business.
The statewide building code in Alabama is not under the Building Commission.
It's under the Fire Marshall's office...a nice guy, I spoke to him myself just to make sure I was reading the law correctly.
The building commission only oversees building built with state funds.
The building code wherever there is not a locally adopted code is SBC 1997. The life safety code is NFPA 2006.
For a variety of reasons, I doubt you'll see any version of the IBC adopted by the State Fire Marshall's office any time soon.
Here in the Bible belt churches with occupant loads greater than 300 and no municipal water service are not uncommon.
SBC and NFPA draw the same line for mandatory sprinklers - more than 1000, provided that fixed seating is used.
My personal opinion is that if experience had proven to be dangerous, the NFPA would have removed the provision long ago.
Anyway, I'm not charged with enforcing anything in my jurisdiction. Firstly because I don't have a jurisdiction and secondly because I'm no longer in the enforcement business (and haven't been for quite a while).
On the other hand, I am, like my dear friend Alora, in the compliance business.
JBI
Registered User
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
brudgers - I have no interest in or need to belittle you. I do listen.
The problem is you seem to want Code Officials to believe they have some 'liability' with regard to the ADA, and a duty of some kind to ensure it is complied with. These are simply not true unless the jurisdiction has adopted the ADA and/or ADAAG. MOST have not. A Code Officials' duty and responsibility is to enforce the Codes that have been adopted by the jurisdiction.
The only times most COs need to be concerned with ADA/ADAAG are when reviewing projects for buildings owned by their jurisdiction.
We can ADVISE DPs and building owners that they need to comply, but we cannot require it. Attempting to do so would expose us (and our jurisdictions) to serious liability. This is simply a matter of fact, not fiction.
brudgers - I have no interest in or need to belittle you. I do listen.
The problem is you seem to want Code Officials to believe they have some 'liability' with regard to the ADA, and a duty of some kind to ensure it is complied with. These are simply not true unless the jurisdiction has adopted the ADA and/or ADAAG. MOST have not. A Code Officials' duty and responsibility is to enforce the Codes that have been adopted by the jurisdiction.
The only times most COs need to be concerned with ADA/ADAAG are when reviewing projects for buildings owned by their jurisdiction.
We can ADVISE DPs and building owners that they need to comply, but we cannot require it. Attempting to do so would expose us (and our jurisdictions) to serious liability. This is simply a matter of fact, not fiction.
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
You believe that you are not exposed to liability when you permit a building that is non-compliant with ADA in your jurisdiction.
I believe that you are, and this is the reason for DOJ code certification.
The point is subtle.
Other than negligence, you have sovereign immunity regarding your actions in enforcement of the building code as a building code official. We both get that.
The ADA/ADAAG [let's agree not to wrestle with the proper title] is not a building code; it is civil rights law.
We both understand that as well.
Here's the difference.
When construction that violates ADA/ADAAG is permitted by your office, you are permitting a (potential) violation of someone's civil rights and doing so in an official capacity (often with full knowledge of the violation).
Sovereign immunity does not exist for violations of civil rights (much less local sovereign immunity with regards to any Federal law).
And thus I believe you are exposed. (As far as I can recall, there is no "good faith" exception for local code officials and it would be difficult to make a good faith claim anyway when SOP is to ignore ADAAG.)
Even if my legal theory is mistaken, there is an important aspect of ADA upon which you are misinformed.
DOJ is empowered to enforce ADA, however, a person alleging a civil rights violation under ADA can proceed directly to Federal Court.
All claims of violation under ADA are ripe for litigation from the moment they are alleged to occur.
Unlike issues arising under FHA, there is no required administrative process and the DOJ does not have standing unless the plaintiff chooses.
Duty, obligation to enforce, etc. aside, my belief is that jurisdictions and their code officials have exposure under ADA.
I also believe that A117.1 and its lack of certification heightens their level of exposure.
Essentially, the ICC sells an accessibility standard that does not comply with Federal law.
You and I believe something different.John Drobysh said:
You believe that you are not exposed to liability when you permit a building that is non-compliant with ADA in your jurisdiction.
I believe that you are, and this is the reason for DOJ code certification.
The point is subtle.
Other than negligence, you have sovereign immunity regarding your actions in enforcement of the building code as a building code official. We both get that.
The ADA/ADAAG [let's agree not to wrestle with the proper title] is not a building code; it is civil rights law.
We both understand that as well.
Here's the difference.
When construction that violates ADA/ADAAG is permitted by your office, you are permitting a (potential) violation of someone's civil rights and doing so in an official capacity (often with full knowledge of the violation).
Sovereign immunity does not exist for violations of civil rights (much less local sovereign immunity with regards to any Federal law).
And thus I believe you are exposed. (As far as I can recall, there is no "good faith" exception for local code officials and it would be difficult to make a good faith claim anyway when SOP is to ignore ADAAG.)
Even if my legal theory is mistaken, there is an important aspect of ADA upon which you are misinformed.
DOJ is empowered to enforce ADA, however, a person alleging a civil rights violation under ADA can proceed directly to Federal Court.
All claims of violation under ADA are ripe for litigation from the moment they are alleged to occur.
Unlike issues arising under FHA, there is no required administrative process and the DOJ does not have standing unless the plaintiff chooses.
Duty, obligation to enforce, etc. aside, my belief is that jurisdictions and their code officials have exposure under ADA.
I also believe that A117.1 and its lack of certification heightens their level of exposure.
Essentially, the ICC sells an accessibility standard that does not comply with Federal law.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
Not disagreeing with your post but the DOJ has to negotiate a settlement first.
Not disagreeing with your post but the DOJ has to negotiate a settlement first.
Re: Accessible pedicure chair?
As I mentioned earlier, I received enlightenment from a whiz bang municipal counsel.
Not mentioned earlier, I was involved in research relating to a private lawsuit against said municipality.
Later, I worked for a company that had been successfully sued under ADA by the DOJ.
Let's just say I'm familiar with institutions that take it seriously.
Nope.mtlogcabin said:
Link: http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335
As I mentioned earlier, I received enlightenment from a whiz bang municipal counsel.
Not mentioned earlier, I was involved in research relating to a private lawsuit against said municipality.
Later, I worked for a company that had been successfully sued under ADA by the DOJ.
Let's just say I'm familiar with institutions that take it seriously.