ADA compliant bathroom required for used car lot office?

[MattLilli]

Hello.

Bureau Veritas is telling me that in order to receive an occupancy permit for a used car lot office, we need to have an ADA compliant bathroom within 300 feet. The office for the business is only used to securely store keys and paperwork. In fact, no paperwork is being completed at the actual business. ALL paperwork is to be completed at the local public notary. Customers show up, test drive a car, and if they want to buy it....meet at the local notary. Do we really need an ADA bathroom? Is there any way around this? This is in Pennsylvania.

Thank you.

 

[ADAguy]

Where oh where are employees to go? A tree, ditch, pail? How big is the office (consider replacing it with a container?)

 

[MattLilli]

It is a sole proprietor with no employees and a private non ADA compliant bathroom 30 feet away. The office is 12 x 16. There is not a used car dealer office within 100 miles that has an ada compliant bathroom. Most have no bathroom at all. The state requires a permanent building with a phone and a filing cabinet. I am told this bathroom requirement is new and I was hoping someone would have some expertise on it.

 

[fatboy]

And if the customer that shows up to test drive, has the urge, uncontrollably?

And FYI, this is a forum that discusses code requirements, typically not how to circumvent them.

 

[mark handler]

If it is the place of business.
You shall provide restroom facilities for the public and employees
If you provide restroom facilities for the public you shall provide accessible restroom facilities.per code.
Could be an accessible porta potty and handwashing station.

 

[conarb]

If it is the place of business.
You shall provide restroom facilities for the public and employees
If you provide restroom facilities for the public you shall provide accessible restroom facilities.per code.
Could be an accessible porta potty and handwashing station.

What? I see all kinds of businesses without public restrooms, even signs on the doors in restaurants, I thought it was occupant load that determined the need for public restrooms, has that changed?

 

[tmurray]

What? I see all kinds of businesses without public restrooms, even signs on the doors in restaurants, I thought it was occupant load that determined the need for public restrooms, has that changed?

Sounds like you're mixing two requirements, the number of water closets is to be sized on the total occupant load of the building. If the owner gives access to the public would be governed by health codes or their own decision where there are no laws requiring access.

I can't force an owner to make their washrooms accessible to the public. I can't even make sure the design provides them that option. All I can do is make sure there are the proper number of fixtures and that barrier free access is provided.

 

[mark handler]

Sounds like you're mixing two requirements, the number of water closets is to be sized on the total occupant load of the building. If the owner gives access to the public would be governed by health codes or their own decision where there are no laws requiring access.

I can't force an owner to make their washrooms accessible to the public. I can't even make sure the design provides them that option. All I can do is make sure there are the proper number of fixtures and that barrier free access is provided.

It Is in the code. By your reasoning you cannot enforce any of the code provisions.

For those Non CA users
International Plumbing Code
403.3 Required public toilet facilities.
Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization

The IBC also says (IBC 2902.6) "Customers, patrons, and visitors..."

IBC 1109.2 Toilet and Bathing Facilities
Each toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible.

For those in CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
422.4 Toilet Facilities Serving Employees and Customers.
Each building or structure shall be provided with toilet facilities for employees and customers.

 

[tmurray]

In our regulatory framework, building codes generally regulate the construction of the buildings, not the day-to-day use, unless it is a change in occupancy. Our fire code and health regulation regulate day-to-day use of buildings. I make sure that all the plumbing fixture are provided based on the total occupant load of the building or suite, but if the owner chooses not to make them available to customers, I can't do anything about it because they were provided as required by code. They simply aren't accessible to the public. Now, the health inspector might be able to do something about it in certain occupancies (restaurants).

I find it strange that your building inspection departments would involve themselves in non-construction issues related to if a customer is allowed to use the washroom of a business or not.

 

[mark handler]

I find it strange that your building inspection departments would involve themselves in non-construction issues related to if a customer is allowed to use the washroom of a business or not.

We do get involved if there is a compliant or is there is a new business application.
We do not know the backstory of the Original post or poster......

 

[MattLilli]

Thank you Mark Handler for actually providing me information regarding code and a reasonable solution. The portapot is a good idea and a fair compromise.

Thank you to the first two posters for answering the question that was not asked: "can anyone think of a situation where a bathroom at a used car office would come in handy". Also, fatboy, if you are the administrator of the this site, I would think you would be capable of providing information rather than trying to be cute and then criticizing someone's possible intent behind their question. You probably loved requiring people to have r38 attic doors until it was accepted to be stupid requiring an interior door to be more insulated than the exterior ones. I think you need to re-read the welcome message. I would have been happy to make a contribution to the site or upgrade my account based on the amount of money and aggravation Mark's suggestion may save me, but not if you are the administrator. no thank you.

 

[conarb]

For those in CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
422.4 Toilet Facilities Serving Employees and Customers.
Each building or structure shall be provided with toilet facilities for employees and customers.

When did that come into the codes? I can show you all kinds of businesses in major cities with signs on the doors: "No Public Restrooms".

Having prostate/kidney problems I can't ride our BART trains, the restrooms are always placarded "Out of Service", I asked a station agent once and she said they keep them out of service because people shoot up heroin in them.

 

[ADAguy]

Matt, you need to understand that many responders to your comments are not AHJ's or designers, some are frustrated, grumpy oldtimers who remember back when codes and laws were minimal. Interpretation is the name of the game but that requires a clear understanding of the "specific facts" related to a project. It is often necessary to "read" between the lines to arrive at the resolution of an issue.

Welcome to our "band".

 

[conarb]

Matt, you need to understand that many responders to your comments are not AHJ's or designers, some are frustrated, grumpy oldtimers who remember back when codes and laws were minimal. Interpretation is the name of the game but that requires a clear understanding of the "specific facts" related to a project. It is often necessary to "read" between the lines to arrive at the resolution of an issue.

Welcome to our "band".

I'm just asking when the change happened? Are older business grandfathered in? Shouldn't businesses know? What about a major government utility like BART?

 

[tmurray]

It might just be a change in interpretation. The word "provided" can be read two ways. The way I interpret it is that the proper number of fixture must be provided based on the total occupancy load. An owner cannot make a decision at the planning stage to limit washrooms to staff only and thus reduce the number of fixtures required. Mark's interpretation indicates that the fixtures must be provided on a continuing basis and that owners must provide access to customers.

 

[JCraver]

In Illinois we can't adopt the IPC. Our Plumbing Code (thankfully) doesn't require restrooms (with limited exceptions - verifiable medical need gets you in an employees-only RR, all eat-in food service establishments and motor fuel stations with attendants, or if the bldg. is bigger than 5000 sf and OL is >100). For every other kind of business, public restrooms are optional.

Does PA have a statewide plumbing or ADA code?

 

[mark handler]

Thank you Mark Handler for actually providing me information regarding code and a reasonable solution. The portapot is a good idea and a fair compromise.
.

Make sure it is an accessible unit, by the way, some planning divisions will not allow it, check with AHJ

 

[mark handler]

Mark's interpretation indicates that the fixtures must be provided on a continuing basis and that owners must provide access to customers.

Not an interpretation; quotes from code, black and white code states it.

 

[tmurray]

Thank you Mark Handler for actually providing me information regarding code and a reasonable solution. The portapot is a good idea and a fair compromise.

Thank you to the first two posters for answering the question that was not asked: "can anyone think of a situation where a bathroom at a used car office would come in handy". Also, fatboy, if you are the administrator of the this site, I would think you would be capable of providing information rather than trying to be cute and then criticizing someone's possible intent behind their question. You probably loved requiring people to have r38 attic doors until it was accepted to be stupid requiring an interior door to be more insulated than the exterior ones. I think you need to re-read the welcome message. I would have been happy to make a contribution to the site or upgrade my account based on the amount of money and aggravation Mark's suggestion may save me, but not if you are the administrator. no thank you.

The job we do as AHJ is not about liking or disliking enforcing things. There are things I agree with in the codes and things I don't. But I don't get to exercise my opinion as a civil servant. What can be a challenge for us is when we speak with someone who shows disregard for the system of laws that we are responsible for enforcing. statements like "Is there any way around this? " indicates to me that you lack the necessary respect for the laws and codes enacted by our society and I am not able to trust you. If your questions had been worded differently, like "are there some easy compliance options available" you would have likely seen more constructive comments. You will notice that Mark's response was not a way around the requirement.

 

[tmurray]

Not an interpretation; quotes from code, black and white code states it.

Wouldn't fly here. This would be a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as unreasonable search and seizure. We don't have legislated authority to perform inspections after construction unless there is unpermitted construction or a change of use taking place.

 

[conarb]

Not an interpretation; quotes from code, black and white code states it.

If that's the case we need a law notifying all business when major changes like this go into effect, we have businesses all over the place with no public restrooms, again I ask: When did the code change to require this? Specifically CPC 422.4 and IPC 403.3? And again, were existing businesses grandfathered when CPC 422.4 and IPC 403.3 went into effect?

 

[ADAguy]

Isn't that why you have Code Enforcement Officers for complaints and in some cities to monitor completed buildings?

 

[conarb]

Isn't that why you have Code Enforcement Officers for complaints and in some cities to monitor completed buildings?

That is such a major change why haven't we heard about it here? Do inspectors know about it?

 

[ADAguy]

Oh yes, AHJ's in CA know of this and in some cities it is a major source of revenue. other cities frown on it for political reasons.
Code Enforcement can field calls on permitted work, work being performed without a permit or neusence abatement.
Can't respond to ADA complaints but can enforce non-code compliant permit work.