Gizmo
Bronze Member
According to the ADA Code requirement regarding a door with a "Latch and Closer", it is to have a minimum clearance of 12" beyond the strike-side on the push side of the opening. I am being told by some Access Compliance Inspectors at one of the largest School Districts in the Country, that this applies to Exit Devices as well. My argument is that the authors of the code implied that a "Latch" is a double levered device, e.g.; Lock and/or Latchset which require access to the leading edge of the door to unlatch it in order to open it. Since an Exit/Panic Device can be unlatched at the center of the door, this requirement is not required. I have been told that the code doesn't define a "Latch" as a lockset and should include an exit device because it latches onto the jamb. To be fair, these DSA Inspectors do not know a great deal about Architectural Hardware and I have tried to explain to them that since the authors of the Access Compliance code site both a "Latch" and an "Exit Device" throughout the text, they would have identified an Exit Device if so warranted. I even explained that if the work-around for not providing this clearance is not met, to install an access button which would unlatch either the strike or strike plate allowing one to just push the door open and pass through. Now what if I installed this push button on the door... and said how is that any different than how an exit device operates.
Is there any documentation I can share with them that explicitly details that a "Latch" is not an Exit Device? What amazes me is how determined they hold their position on a decision they made even when proven to be wrong! I liken this behaviour to a Defense Attorney who argues for his clients' innocence even in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves otherwise... they act as if they will lose their livelihood if they had to admit that they were wrong.
Thanks,
Bob
Is there any documentation I can share with them that explicitly details that a "Latch" is not an Exit Device? What amazes me is how determined they hold their position on a decision they made even when proven to be wrong! I liken this behaviour to a Defense Attorney who argues for his clients' innocence even in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves otherwise... they act as if they will lose their livelihood if they had to admit that they were wrong.
Thanks,
Bob