• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Complaint RE: ADA + Stairs = Conundrum

A

Alias

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
1,649
Location
State of Disbelief
I have a written complaint on my desk from a nice elderly lady. The complaint is about a day spa in town and access to the building.

I called the owner and asked about former uses, etc. He informed me that he had bought the property from a church.

There are two buildings on the property. Owner converted the church building for his use. The second existing building in question started out as a residence for the pastor and was later converted to office/meeting space by the church. This building is the one that now contains the day spa.

I researched any permits, etc. and found one for the addition of a covered porch, 12'8" wide by 8' deep; issued in 2002. According to my records, it was never finaled. On the application for permit it lists the building use as residential.

So, I went out and investigated. Stairs - total of 2, bottom is 7" H X 13" D x 12'8" L, top is 6 1/2" H x 8' D x 12' 8" L. No handrails are present. Porch height is 14" above grade for the entire porch. The front door opens inward and has a threshold with a bottom that is less than 1/2" above the concrete porch.

I looked up code sections and I feel that it meets the letter of the CBC. Am I wrong? Does it need handrails or guards? I am not CASp certified and am hesitant to make a firm decision living in the land of the litigous (CA). What say the ADA gurus here?
 
Well biting the apple one bite at a time, I say you have a change of use and need to bring everything up to code. How much support do you have for making the case to your superior? If not drop a dime to the D of Justice and have them take a look.
 
Well having started as a church and remaining a church maybe ( its a rumor to me ) churches in existance at ADA adoption did not have to comply.

Local official called recently that a church group had purchased an existing facility -( Storage Factory ) and was converting to church and they presented him

with a DOJ opinion that churches did not have to comply with ADA.

I told him that all new work would comly with the code and to have them go back to DOJ and get a letter or opinion that

They would not have to meet the Building Codes - Short Story they will comply with building code CH 11 and References Ansi 117.1

So if thats the case the reverse would also be church exempt or not by DOJ converted to other would comply with new use and occupancy
 
All parts of churches are ADA exempt, except when they are running a business open to the public ,in a part of it.

Since this is in California, all parts of the church must meet state of California accessibility codes.

In California Handrails are required, They also need a ramp.
 
Designers have to worry about ADA. Code

Officials need to focus on the Code.

Unless your jurisdiction adopts the ADA outright, Chapter 11 and Ansi A117.1.

An 'existing building' must legally exist on the date of adoption to qualify for the EBC/Chapter 34. Even then, a change of occupancy will likely require full compliance (and a 14' ramp won't be unreasonable or 'technically infeasable').
 
I'll add that a dwelling of indeterminate age with a raised floor system is somewhat unlikely to meet the structural requirements for a commercial use.
 
California building departments do not enforce ADA, the responsibility for project conformance rests with the architect, builder and property owner.

The ADA is enforced through administrative complaints to federal agencies (US Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, etc.) or by private lawsuits.
 
mark handler said:
California building departments do not enforce ADA, the responsibility for project conformance rests with the architect, builder and property owner.The ADA is enforced through administrative complaints to federal agencies (US Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, etc.) or by private lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mark. The best I can do at this time is suggest/recommend that the property owner make CA ADA upgrades for his own protection against a lawsuit.

As the original building was a rectory/parish house and the occupancy was changed a couple of decades ago and the church was converted to a dental office at about the same time, anything else is pretty much a moot point for me especially since there probably wasn't any enforcement when this occurred.
 
brudgers said:
I'll add that a dwelling of indeterminate age with a raised floor system is somewhat unlikely to meet the structural requirements for a commercial use.
Click to expand...
Oh? Please elaborate.
 
structural.. that's a real issue; If they change the "church" to any other use including any other assembly occupancy, they are no longer protected by DOJ (which may or may not really exist - we all kind of assume so), and the building(s) are in play under the Codes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top