• 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 compliant bathroom required for used car lot office?

ADAguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
When did it go into effect? As I recall there was an occupant threshold that triggered the public restroom requirement, which code cycle eliminated that?
 
MattLilli said:
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.
Click to expand...
Would a non-occupiable kiosk for storing the keys still trigger this requirement? Where do the dealer's employees work when they aren't meeting customers for test drives?
 
Or a cargo van? both are non-occupiable. Future possibility of hiring a disabled salesman who could make an EEOC request for reasonable accommodation.
 
CONARB
way back in 1976 under the old UBC world it did say under each category what the number of fixtures were (sometimes!). For example an A Division I (Section 605, assembly over 1000, you had to have "at least one lavatory for each two water closets for each sex, and at least one drinking fountain for each floor level". But it did not say how many water closets were required in that category! The B category contained many divisions. And here is what some of the language was for toilets: "Every building or portion thereof where persons are employed shall be provided with at least one water closet" Separate facilities shall be provided for each sex where the number of employees exceed four and both sexes are employed. Such facilities shall be located either in such building or conveniently located in a building adjacent thereto on the same property".

Somewhere the UBC introduced the appendix section and in 1997 there was chapter 29 (which had the similar language about separate sexes) and had table 29-A which gave the number of water closets, lavs, etc by occupancy and occupant load.

The argument regarding when did you have to start making them available to the public - well probably around the time of the original ADA I would guess. Maybe (jokingly) you remember when the argument was for separate sexes!

Older Uniform plumbing codes had language for M and B occupancy's that used the language of "serving customers" and "requirements for customers and employees". The IPC is not that old (around 2000 maybe 1999) and most of its language was similar to UPC.
 
linnrg said:
CONARB
The argument regarding when did you have to start making them available to the public - well probably around the time of the original ADA I would guess. Maybe (jokingly) you remember when the argument was for separate sexes!
Click to expand...

Thanks Linnrg, that is how I remember it, and that's also how the majority of buildings today were built. I guess I'm getting old and remember when there were only two sexes, I remember in about 1969 and boys were starting to let their hair grow out long, I asked my 12 year-old son how we were going to be able to tell the difference between boys and girls? He said: "Easy dad, girls have bumps on their chests". Apparently it isn't that easy anymore.
 
Facilities are required, and are required to comply with both the Code and ADA.
The ADA is a US Law, so not applicable north of the border, hence the different rules for tmurray.
Within the US all states must address the federal mandates within the ADA of face possible action by the Dept of Justice, same would be true for a business in the US.
If the OP would prefer a federal lawsuit to simple compliance with a lawfully adopted regulation, then OP should open without any approvals whatsoever and see where that goes.
I agree that the OP took a confrontational approach to the situation, as is often the case with newbies here.
The Authority Having Jurisdiction is charged with enforcing the Codes and an applicant is normally offered an opportunity to appeal a determination. That process is spelled out in either State or Local Law. If the OP wishes wishes to do less than the Code requires then the OP should ask the AHJ what the appeal process is.
I have seen the storage shed set-ups for used car lots. I think it's a poorly contrived way to avoid some Code requirements, but am not completely familiar with PA Law and regulation so I don't question it.
Perhaps Jeff can weigh in on this as PA is his home state?
 
"Unpermitted construction" would be not allowing access to a required fixture here....You can put up all the signs you want, but if I enter a building and have to go, I am going somewhere and the employees can decide if it is the bathroom or floor....
 
JBI said:
Within the US all states must address the federal mandates within the ADA of face possible action by the Dept of Justice, same would be true for a business in the US.
Click to expand...

There is a huge debate about this, especially here in California where some cities have declared themselves sanctuaries where Federal law doesn't apply, there is even a proposal to make the entire state a sanctuary for those who violate Federal law.

Over the years, in the discussions we have had here, it's always been the position of most inspectors that they don't enforce federal law, with the huge percentage of construction workers being illegal using local inspectors to enforce Federal immigration law would be a huge benefit to the Federal Government.
 
conarb, I did not suggest that AHJ's should (or even could) enforce a Federal Law that they are not authorized to enforce. What I said was that States and Jurisdictions needed to address the Federal mandates in the ADA. That is, they must adopt regulations consistent with the requirements of the ADA to facilitate compliance within their jurisdiction. The DOJ is the enforcement authority for ADA and always has been.
By adopting Chapter 11 of the IBC and the ICC/ANSI Standard, jurisdictions are staying compliant with the federal mandate and helping businesses to comply with the ADA for new and altered buildings.
If individual States or jurisdictions choose to ignore the law they run the risk of DOJ enforcement actions, that's their choice.
 
Yahoo! I have finally been heard.

Congratulations MH, if more cities would do this the issue of compliance would "eventually" be met.
 
@ = @ = @

" DOJ enforcement is political, does anyone here actually know of
a case where the DOJ, Republican or Democrat, has enforced ADA laws? "
Click to expand...
conarb,
Do you know of anything that is NOT political ?

@ = @ = @
 
mark handler said:
We do a business occupancy inspection in order to get a business license.
No sanitary facilities no occupany
Click to expand...
So, we've developed a workaround to implement the Marxist agenda of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." One has to wonder if this "business occupancy inspection" was the work of Mark Handler or was in place prior to his take over?
 
conarb said:
So, we've developed a workaround to implement the Marxist agenda of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." One has to wonder if this "business occupancy inspection" was the work of Mark Handler or was in place prior to his take over?
Click to expand...

I really doubt that MH had anything to do with the policy put in place, merely doing his job, as he was hired to do. Such things come from up above..........typically........
 
fatboy said:
I really doubt that MH had anything to do with the policy put in place, merely doing his job, as he was hired to do. Such things come from up above..........typically........
Click to expand...

Fatboy:

Could be as I said I was speculating, I've never heard of a "building occupancy inspection" and MH appears to be overly consumed with disability enforcement, why?
 
Sometimes it's just something that someone knows a lot about. Simply filling a void in the industry. I don't know Mark's personal feelings on accessibility requirements. He's not discussed them that I can remember. He simply is knowledgeable about the laws.
 
tmurray said:
Sometimes it's just something that someone knows a lot about. Simply filling a void in the industry. I don't know Mark's personal feelings on accessibility requirements. He's not discussed them that I can remember. He simply is knowledgeable about the laws.
Click to expand...
Come on T Murray, you know better then that, I agree with your approach, apply it to new construction, it doesn't cost any more to lower the mirrors, or very much more to widen the doors, but to inflict serious costs on unsuspecting business owners and taxpayers is ridiculous, even my handicapped friends don't want anything to do with it because of all the "pushback" it causes. He has long championed the Orwellian language of the disabled activists, there is no reason for that.

We now have enormous Codes and Standards that have pushed costs up exponentially, and we talk about disability all the time, a fractional element of codes. Here in the Bay Area we are having more extremism anticipated starting tomorrow, one has to wonder why these people don't "get a life" and ignore all these extremist causes, left and right, disability laws are solidly in the left camp, and as such are political impositions on others under color of law, start doing this and people fight back, it's a normal human reaction to unwanted impositions. This entire thread is an example, some guy wants to open a small used car lot, society is going to impose huge costs on him to include a bathroom that may never be used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top