Airplane Hanger Condo Accessibility(?)

[Glennman CBO]

We have a submittal to install a restroom in an airplane hanger that is accessed only by the owner. It is not accessible to the public, but it is in a "commercially zoned" area near the local airport.

Apparently, the people buy the hanger similar to a "condo". It is only accessed by them. They want a restroom so that they can use it while visiting their plane (never feel sorry for a man that owns a plane).

You guessed it. The plans do not have any accessible elements in it (shower, sink, toilet).

Does this restroom need to be accessible? There is quite a stir about it in the office today. Some say yes, some no.

What do all you good code geeks say?

 

[Coug Dad]

Not fully accessible if per 1109.2.

 

[fatboy]

That's the direction I'd be taking.

 

[Frank]

Agree can be adaptable per 1109.2 exception 1. Need to provide the clear spaces and grab gar reinforcement but dont have to install accessible fixtures or grab bars at this time.

 

[Yikes]

Glenman - ask the question this way:

A guy comes in with plans for a small storage warehouse in a commercial zone. He says it is for his private storage. He has no employees, and is conducting no public business. Accessible toilet?

Out here is California, I would still say "yes, the accessibility code is applicable". If he could turn around and sell the warehouse to someone else someday, and if your zonig code would allow commercial activity there (an employee fetches the airplane) then you are subject to commercial codes.

If the guy is that keen on having an inaccesible bathroom, he can set down a porta potti in a closet.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Yes, it has to be accessible unless it can meet the exception as a "private office" bathroom.

Be prepared to provide enough information to make someone real warm and fuzzy about it.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Allow the restroom and go back in a year. You may find a full wet bar, refrigerator, big screen tv, poker table and a couple of couches and lounge chairs to watch the big game on. Don't forget to look for the propane BBQ grill in the corner.

Just my experience.

 

[fatboy]

"If the guy is that keen on having an inaccesible bathroom, he can set down a porta potti in a closet."

How about a desk in the hanger? Large office.

 

[Glennman CBO]

I suppose he could start a night club there too, complete with drinks, dancing girls, and maybe even an asprin factory on the opposite side of the hanger.

I don't think it is our place to forsee what "could" be done with it.

He could add the "wet bar and barbeque" even if the restroom was accessible.

I could own a home that is existing non conforming in a commercial zone, but I wouldn't be requiured to install an accessible restroom in it. Someone could buy it, and turn it into an office for a business. Any code issues would be dealt with at that time, and it would be the new owner's responsibility to inform us of the changes.

As far as this scenerio goes, I can see no specific exception to it being accessible. But, I can understand why someone would think it wouldn't need to be.

Also, the so called "exception" (private office) is not really an exception at all. You still need all the room sizes, toilet distance from the wall, etc. You just need to be able to reverse the door, and install a taller toilet, and add the grab bars, etc. We get that all the time. People think you can build a smaller restroom if it is accessed through a private office.

 

[brudgers]

Not a dwelling or a private club - probably needs to meet ADAAG.

 

[conarb]

Since when do local jurisdictions enforce ADAAG? I thought only California enforced their state version since they have codified it. Have other states codified it?

 

[Gene Boecker]

conarb,

Florida adopts the ADAAG, Iowa adopts the ADAAG and Ohio adopts the ADAAG. California adopts its own accessibility code not base don anything else but using pieces from the IBC. Illinois adopts its own code that is loosely based on the ADAAG. Brudger's comment is about the fact that whatever the local codes say, the federal ADAAG still needs to be applied. That being said, 4.1.3(11) of the old ADAAG has the same "private office" clause in it that is being referenced.

 

[mtlogcabin]

My point was a private airplane hanger is usually used for more than parking an airplane thus restroom should be fully accessible.

 

[Glennman CBO]

I guess it comes down to what "private ownership" means.

It doesn't mean anything anymore. If it's not an IRC structure, then it's not private(?)

The plans examiner already informed the guy to submit new plans.

Thanks all.

 

[brudgers]

conarb,Florida adopts the ADAAG, Iowa adopts the ADAAG and Ohio adopts the ADAAG. California adopts its own accessibility code not base don anything else but using pieces from the IBC. Illinois adopts its own code that is loosely based on the ADAAG. Brudger's comment is about the fact that whatever the local codes say, the federal ADAAG still needs to be applied. That being said, 4.1.3(11) of the old ADAAG has the same "private office" clause in it that is being referenced.

Good luck convincing a Federal Judge to throw out the suit based on the idea that "private office" really means "airplane hanger."

 

[mark handler]

California adopts its own accessibility code not base don anything else but using pieces from the IBC.

Not true the CA accessibility codes Predate "The IBC" and the ADAAG

A brief history of access laws in CA

1968 – Government Code 4450 Covered publicly funded bldgs, sidewalks, curbs, etc

1961 ASA A117.1 – in effect until 1982

1968 – G.C. 4452 Made access codes minimum standards

1968 – Civil Code 51 – Unruh Act Made denial of access a civil rights violation Specified access needs to be provided in a manner applicable alike to all persons.

1970 – Health & Safety Code 19955 Privately funded facilities included

1973 – H & S 19959 & G.C. 4456 Alterations to existing buildings

1980 – H & S 19957 Made exceptions more regulated, less leeway for Building Official. 19957.5 established accessibility appeals board.

1978 Public Resources Code 5070 Recreational facilities, trails, bikeways, boat docks, playground equip., etc

1982 CCR – T-24 1st put access into building code

1991 UBC Chapter 31 Gov’t. Code 4450 – 4459 Purpose to ensure that all buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs and facilities are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Not true the CA accessibility codes Predate "The IBC" and the ADAAG

Easy on the ego, Mark.

The current California regulations have incorporated into them the accessible means of egress provisions and a number of the occupancy specific requirements that are in the IBC. Nobody is challenging the length of time that California has had some type of accessibility rules in place. My point is that it is its own document but has made changes in the past few years to incorporate provisions that align with the federal ADA as part of the state's certification effort. In doing so a number of items have been dropped in from the IBC and some have simply been changes made to the existing text to comply with the federal requirements.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Good luck convincing a Federal Judge to throw out the suit based on the idea that "private office" really means "airplane hanger."

Who knows what a federal judge will do, Ben?

Hence my earlier comment to be prepared to make someone feel all warm and fuzzy when you ask for that interpretation. Personally, I think it's a stretch but its the only game option available.

 

[mark handler]

The current California regulations have incorporated into them the accessible means of egress provisions and a number of the occupancy specific requirements that are in the IBC.

The issue I have is you keep saying "IBC". CA is making it's code closer to the ADAAG, not the "IBC". It's provisions are not based on the "IBC".

 

[texas transplant]

The restroom and all other elements should be accessible in my opinion. The hanger doesn't meet the exception.

I also agree with brudgers. This is first hand experience. Small public airport here, has same "condo" like hangers. Built 5 years ago, state did the accessiblity review, approved the plans with only a small private (non-accessible) bath w/shower in the units that wanted restrooms. 2 years ago based on a complaint, DOJ came in and inspected the units. DOJ said has to be accessible. They are jack hammering concrete today to make the changes.

Even if you make the determination in your jurisdiction that code doesn't require accessibility, you might want to "advise" owner or design professional to take a look at things outside of what you enforce. It is good public relations to tell them that, and when the DOJ has them making changes later on, you can be in the "I told you so columum when they are looking for where to place the blame.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Mark, the 2010 Standards require the accessible means of egress to be based on the IBC. There is no other way to get that into the CA text besides using the requirements from the IBC. The new federal standards are based on the ICC/ANSI A117.1 (as referenced in the IBC) so there is text - either directly or indirectly - that comes from the IBC; albeit quite limited.

Why do you hate the IBC so much? Did you help write the CA regulations?

 

[Gene Boecker]

The restroom and all other elements should be accessible in my opinion. The hanger doesn't meet the exception.I also agree with brudgers. This is first hand experience. Small public airport here, has same "condo" like hangers. Built 5 years ago, state did the accessiblity review, approved the plans with only a small private (non-accessible) bath w/shower in the units that wanted restrooms. 2 years ago based on a complaint, DOJ came in and inspected the units. DOJ said has to be accessible. They are jack hammering concrete today to make the changes.

Even if you make the determination in your jurisdiction that code doesn't require accessibility, you might want to "advise" owner or design professional to take a look at things outside of what you enforce. It is good public relations to tell them that, and when the DOJ has them making changes later on, you can be in the "I told you so columum when they are looking for where to place the blame.

There's a difference between making it non-accessible and treating it as a private toilet room. There's no jack hammering that would be required since the configuration would require placement so that such extensive alteration isn't required.

btw: doesn't Texas have a "Certified" accessibility code? Didn't that help them at all or is the RAS now looking for other work?

 

[brudgers]

Who knows what a federal judge will do, Ben?Hence my earlier comment to be prepared to make someone feel all warm and fuzzy when you ask for that interpretation. Personally, I think it's a stretch but its the only game option available.

Sorry Gene, but bad ideas don't deserve equal time. Particularly when those bad ideas are an attempt to violate civil rights law.

 

[Yikes]

I guess it comes down to what "private ownership" means.

Glennman, I would suspect the ownership of the building is irrelevant. "Private use" vs. "public use" is probably more important.