IBC Accessibiility to a Church Platform

[mark handler]

That's the problem with the IBC. Rather than clarifying that performance does not mean worship, they add another provision.

Thats because some worship services are performances

 

[brudgers]

Thats because some worship services are performances

I'm glad to see that you've finally recognized that those that aren't part of the "some" ain't performances.

 

[mark handler]

I'm glad to see that you've finally recognized that those that aren't part of the "some" ain't performances.

I did not "finally recognize" anything, access is not related to a performance. There are additional POT rules when there are performances. Platforms are required to have access with or without performances.

 

[brudgers]

I did not "finally recognize" anything, access is not related to a performance. There are additional POT rules when there are performances. Platforms are required to have access with or without performances.

By what code section?

 

[mark handler]

International Building Code

2012

1101.2 Design.

Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be accessible

1103.1 Where required.

Sites, buildings, structures, facilities, elements and spaces, temporary or permanent, shall be accessible to persons with physical disabilities

1103.2.7 Raised areas.

Raised areas used primarily for purposes of security, life safety or fire safety including, but not limited to, observation galleries, prison guard towers, fire towers or lifeguard stands, are not required to be accessible or to be served by an accessible route.

1103.2.8 Limited access spaces.

Nonoccupiable spaces accessed only by ladders, catwalks, crawl spaces, freight elevators or very narrow passageways are not required to be accessible.

 

[brudgers]

At least now you're reading the code.

Now read a little further down to 1103.2.1

Then keep reading until you understand 1104.4.2

 

[mark handler]

At least now you're reading the code. Now read a little further down to 1103.2.1

Then keep reading until you understand 1104.4.2

Ben

Well I will give you the fact that you certainly have a unique approach. Apparently you are content to just keep rambling until you wear everybody out. Whether the thought process is rational or not.What it "they" say - don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up.

and reread the thread until you understand

 

[brudgers]

Mark, some levels are required to be served by an accessible route.

Some aren't.

A level used for worship is not necessarily required to be served by one.

But don't let the code stand in the way of your misinterpretation.

And don't let the first amendment stand in the way of your paternalism.

 

[DwightB]

I had a plan reviewer in Iowa attempt to press the issue of access to the baptistry. We agreed with other here that it would be difficult and expensive to provide. We also agree that there are sometimes repentant sinners who desire immersion and have mobility issues due to age, weight, or physical impairment. The minister and I were able to convince the reviewer that there are always capable witnesses to the baptism who are more than eager to help someone into or out of the baptistry when necessary. He agreed to describe it as a religious ceremony and not require the church to spend unnecessary expense.

 

[Lynn]

Mercy

I took a few days off and came back and found my question had turned into a three page thread.

Thanks for all the thoughts and interpretations.

In end result I think I have to go with Dwight B relative to the baptistry issue and my interpretation of the code requires access to the platform.

Thanks again for the thoughts and perspectives.

 

[fatboy]

Seems like a reasonable approach...........

 

[brudgers]

Mercy I took a few days off and came back and found my question had turned into a three page thread. Thanks for all the thoughts and interpretations. In end result I think I have to go with Dwight B relative to the baptistry issue and my interpretation of the code requires access to the platform. Thanks again for the thoughts and perspectives.

I don't see any way to apply the code consistently and maintain that distinction. The same argument about helpers can be applied to any raised area within a house of worship.

Essentially, be accepting the difference you are making an ecclesiastical judgement.

And potentially favoring one religion over another.

E.g. your approach allows you to make exceptions for a Baptist church that you might not make for a Synagog.

Furthermore, your approach would require a Mosque to pass your ecclesiastical smell test in order to obtain an exemption.

My recommendation would be to get a written opinion from your municipal attorney.

I'd actually require one, if it were my project.

 

[fatboy]

Oh please, you can't be serious. Religious denominations have absolutely nothing to do with the the application of codes. Give it up...........it fits or it doesn't.

 

[peach]

Churches are exempt from ADA, but not the building code (unless you dont require permits for churches). Needs to be accessible (and I've never had any blowback from churches when I require ramps and lifts).

 

[brudgers]

Churches are exempt from ADA, but not the building code (unless you dont require permits for churches). Needs to be accessible (and I've never had any blowback from churches when I require ramps and lifts).

I've never claimed that houses of worship were exempt from the building code. Code officials aren't either.

 

[brudgers]

Oh please, you can't be serious. Religious denominations have absolutely nothing to do with the the application of codes. Give it up...........it fits or it doesn't.

I'm First Amendment serious. The previous poster was exempting one particular form of religious practice while discriminating against others.

 

[mark handler]

I'm First Amendment serious. The previous poster was exempting one particular form of religious practice while discriminating against others.

Which previous poster ?