conarb
Registered User
Good man, finally a man with guts.Whenever ADA is listed under the designed codes on a plan I am reviewing I cross it off because it is not a code, I am not reviewing per ADA and I don't know or required to know the ADA.
Good man, finally a man with guts.Whenever ADA is listed under the designed codes on a plan I am reviewing I cross it off because it is not a code, I am not reviewing per ADA and I don't know or required to know the ADA.
Conarb... his point is that the ADA is not a building code, ICC Standard A117.1 is.Good man, finally a man with guts.
I assume you are referring to the designers since the AHJ can only review drawings under the rules they have adopted and not the "other" rules and regs that are out there.Woe to he who adheres to "code minimum" without considering all the "other" rules & regs too.
Montana does not provide a way for attorneys and others to profit from non-compliant accessibility requirements like CA, and FL states do. .
Simple it is a federal requirement
No, what i meant was, can the very ethical lawyer file suit against the state regulations rather than federal, to get around the federal restrictions? Or if a city has their own requirements.Then you have added another burden of regulations a designer has to follow in addition the the many others out there.
Remember ANSI is a building code standard and as such is under the AHJ to determine if compliance is met where as the ADA is civil rights and nobody can make exceptions to that except how a court rules.
And the state of Montana has this language
(23) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.
So under ANSI I could approve a WC that is 18.5 inches from the wall to the center line of the WC or a tub opening that is only 59.5 inches clear opening instead of the required 60 inch minimum width but under ADA this would not be permitted
So would someone prevail in a MT local/state court where the BO gave a certificate of occupancy when these "minor" violation posed no "imminent threat" to their safety or welfare? Who knows
We all agree that ADA is not a code but it is the law of the land. If your state chooses to "ignore" the law by not addressing it in its code then owners may be subject to federal and/or state law suits in the future. It is up to their designers to address code items that do not comply with minimum ADA Standards which may exceed A117.1 or ICC Ch 11.
Stop fighting it, it is not rocket science to comply,
The system is working exactly as it is supposed to when "It is up to their designers to address code items that do not comply with minimum ADA Standards which may exceed A117.1 or ICC Ch 11."Yes but, does your code align with the minimum provisions of ADASAD 2010 or only ANSI 117.1?
Really, do you honestly think 1/2 inch will make a difference if a WC or tub can be used or not?
Your question of feasibility and comprehension appears to be a different than your original post, where the original question was:That door hardware (for T-II & T-III, ) should be accessible, as in "no knobs, operable without special knowledge or effort" is that too difficult to do/understand?