• 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

Backwards

Mr. Inspector

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
4,072
Location
Poconos/eastern PA
The lab on the left is accessible but the mirror is too high there, but the mirror on the right is accessible (bottom is under 40"). Sinks were existing, but mirrors are new.
Does the code require the accessible mirror to be over the accessible sink? 2018 IBC

bathroom.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The lab on the left is accessible but the mirror is too high there, but the mirror on the right is accessible (bottom is under 40"). Sinks were existing, but mirrors are new.
Does the code require the accessible mirror to be over the accessible sink? 2018 IBC
1603372368368.png


The code does not require a mirror
if you provide one it needs to be accessible
if someone is using the sink on the right, it is not accessible.
you have other issues, the pipes on the lavatory on the left, are not protected
the soap dispenser mounted too high, yes i know they temporarily have push bottles, how long will they be there, what happens when they are on the floor....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Counting tiles, the lav on the left looks too low to be accessible; as well as, lacking insulation on the hot water & drain.
 
I did not require new mirrors the plans did. The permit was part of a overall upgrade of a office building which included new doors, new ceiling and lights, resurfaced parking lot, replaced HVAC systems, etc.
 
Question: Is the rest of the restroom area compliant with accessibility for plumbing elements? If so, then wouldn't the sink, mirror, pipe protection and soap dispenser also have to be compliant, meaning the mirror would have to be above the sink that looks to be 34" above finished floor since they would have already met that reach requirement.
 
Question: Is the rest of the restroom area compliant with accessibility for plumbing elements? If so, then wouldn't the sink, mirror, pipe protection and soap dispenser also have to be compliant, meaning the mirror would have to be above the sink that looks to be 34" above finished floor since they would have already met that reach requirement.
The new mirrors and towel dispensers are the only things that are now compliant with 2015 codes for accessibility for plumbing elements, the rest of it complies when it was originally built (which were when no codes existed here). Like I said the sinks were existing. The IBEC Level 2 Alterations does not make you update things you are not doing anything with.
 
The new mirrors and towel dispensers are the only things that are now complaint with 2015 codes for accessibility for plumbing elements, the rest of it complies when it was originally built (which were when no codes existed here). Like I said the sinks were existing. The IBEC Level 2 Alterations does not make you update things you are not doing anything with.
That will not protect the owners from a lawsuit
 
Why should I care?
This is in a township office.
I am only allowed to enforce the State Construction Code.


I would never tell them anything from this site.
So let them hang for not complying? Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim; there is no virus so don't wear a mask (smiling).
 
& - & - &

...and Welcome ** Gary Meerschaert** to

The Building Code Forum ! :)

& - & - &
 
Why do you always expect me to make places comply to ADA? I have no authority to do so. I don't even know what the ADA says. If I fail an inspection for something not in the IBC I could get fired or even lose my inspection certification. Are you trying to make me lose my job?
 
Tunnel vision you have, as an inspector you need to know these things.
Awareness is the key to being able to inform an owner even if he doesn't want to hear or plead ignorance.
 
I am not required to know ADA to do my job. The state sets what I need to know, not you.
I never see, know or talk to the owners. Usually the owners of a commercial job are stock holders of the company that owns another company which contracted a company that contracts with another company that hires subcontractors to build the project..
 
Yes you are, even if your AG says otherwise
Says who? Please tell me where you get this from?

The ADA is a Federal Standard administered by a Federal Agency (DOJ).

Like Rick (PA), I (WA) have no legal authority to enforce the ADA. It is not a legally appointed standard. The I-Codes are adopted and administration assigned by the state to cities by State Law. The cities in turn adopt and assign administration to the Building Department and Building Official. No where in any of this is the ADA mentioned or adopted.

Thus, I cannot and will not enforce it. If I do, I can be held liable in civil litigation. The IBC references the A117.1 Standard, which is supposed to meet the ADA. We all know it comes close, exceeding some requirements and failing to meet others. But it is what we have.

That said, owners can and are held liable for failing to comply with the ADA. The ADA which does require continued removal of barriers to accessibility.
 
Your last sentence is the key, owners mistakenly believe that a C of O is a warranty of ADA compliance, They need to be continously reminded that it isn't.
 
Top