• 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.

Pennsylvania Accessibility

I hope you are enjoying the weather.

How do you know if it was ever inspected or had a permit or built before we had codes? Or they only needed the grab bar for the 20%? Tiling or replacing plumbing fixtures do not require a permit. Even sidewalks which could be part of an accessible route are exempt from a permit per PA codes. Would they need a permit in FL?
 
Mr. Inspector said:
I hope you are enjoying the weather.

How do you know if it was ever inspected or had a permit or built before we had codes? Or they only needed the grab bar for the 20%? Tiling or replacing plumbing fixtures do not require a permit. Even sidewalks which could be part of an accessible route are exempt from a permit per PA codes. Would they need a permit in FL?
Click to expand...
Since you don’t trust my judgment in posting photos, let me give you a little backstory. This picture was taken inside the restroom of a mini market in a town that I was once the building code official. I am still friends with the zoning officer who complains to me about the third-party agency, and told me that they pulled a permit to do a renovation a little over a year ago. He actually said to me that it might be worth me taking a ride up the street to check it out for myself to confirm his own frustrations. It just seems to me like you are constantly looking for excuses. So what about if this was a 20% and all they had to do was add a grab bar? Do you think that’s even realistic? Do you think that the toilet handle on the wrong side didn’t have to be changed because of the 20%? And for the record, there was no 20% for this project. This just proves the constant incompetency of the uniform construction so administration in Pennsylvania. In response to your question, would this be required in Florida, the question answered is yes, absolutely. The only thing Florida doesn’t have is a vertical grab bar requirement.
 
That could be in any local government building around here. I am continually amazed by the lack of compliance to accessibility in local and even some state government buildings.
 
"Where are the ADA attack lawyers when you need them?"

Suing people for a 34 1/4" high lavatory or a 2.1% slope in an accessible parking space.
 
This could be a dumb question. Why is there a urinal and toilet in a (presumably) single user compartment?
 
jar546 said:
Since you don’t trust my judgment in posting photos, let me give you a little backstory. This picture was taken inside the restroom of a mini market in a town that I was once the building code official. I am still friends with the zoning officer who complains to me about the third-party agency, and told me that they pulled a permit to do a renovation a little over a year ago. He actually said to me that it might be worth me taking a ride up the street to check it out for myself to confirm his own frustrations. It just seems to me like you are constantly looking for excuses. So what about if this was a 20% and all they had to do was add a grab bar? Do you think that’s even realistic? Do you think that the toilet handle on the wrong side didn’t have to be changed because of the 20%? And for the record, there was no 20% for this project. This just proves the constant incompetency of the uniform construction so administration in Pennsylvania. In response to your question, would this be required in Florida, the question answered is yes, absolutely. The only thing Florida doesn’t have is a vertical grab bar requirement.
Click to expand...
I did have plans where the cost of the alteration was only $100 because the tenet was doing the work themself. It was just a 6'long wall that closed up a opening between two rooms. The one grab bar they put in was more than the required 20%.
 
It would be sadly funny if 20% of $100 project cost = $20 bucks to pay for installing the mounting plates, but it couldn't pay for the grab bar itself.
 
Twice in the last month I have had alterations proposed that did not address the accessible route. Both times I cited the code requirements to do so. Both times it eventually led to the 20% exception, after a lot of kicking and screaming. Neither time was the DP aware of the requirement, or aware of the exception. In fact, pretty sure they didn't know IEBC 305 existed.

I am bombarded daily with events, seminars, webinars, helplines, etc. for how to make people aware of the energy codes. How to understand them, get money to implement them, how to adopt them, how to inspect and review for them. Wouldn't it be nice to have a little more of this type of emphasis for other areas of code? Is it because nobody is getting paid to do that? But I digress.
 
tmurray said:
Interesting. Urinals are not required in our code. They are an option with an offset ratio for water closets.
Click to expand...
Out here in California, our state modified and adopted the Uniform Plumbing Code. The offset ratio of urinals in lieu of water closets is only allowed after you have already provided the minimum number of urinals required by UPC/CPC Table 422.1. See footnote 4 on that table.

There are exceptions in CPC 422.2 for businesses with 50 or less occupants, and other nonresidential uses of 10 occupants or less, to have just a single toilet and lavatory in a single accommodation restroom, with no requirement to have a urinal. I you exceed those occupant counts in California, you need the urinal even when it is still a gender neutral, single accommodation restroom.
 
Sifu said:
I am bombarded daily with events, seminars, webinars, helplines, etc. for how to make people aware of the energy codes. How to understand them, get money to implement them, how to adopt them, how to inspect and review for them. Wouldn't it be nice to have a little more of this type of emphasis for other areas of code? Is it because nobody is getting paid to do that? But I digress.
Click to expand...

I share your pain. The problem is that architects are PAID to design in full conformity with ALL code requirements -- including accessibility. But ... they don't (as we all know too well). The only solution IMHO is for code officials nationwide to start doing more rigorous plan reviews, and to start denying permits when (not if) the construction documents don't demonstrate full conformity.

Soap box time: I became an accredited accessibility consultant in 1978, through a non-defunct organization called the National Center for Barrier-Free Design. My state required accessible design, following A117.1, beginning in (IIRC) 1974. The ADA accessibility technical guidelines date to 1994. This is nothing new, yet owners and architects alike still seem to regard it not as a fundamental design parameter, but as a kind of afterthought. If they're designing a building for a swamp, they start by designing it to go on deep piles. It's always in mind during design and construction. Accessibility? Owners regard it not as a fundamental parameter but as a nuisance to be circumvented as much as possible. (Doctors offices are some of the worst offenders, FWIW.) Architects still seem to regard accessibility, even 50 years later, not as something to be a design feature but as if it's a band-aid that gets slapped on the building after they've designed their monumental edifice. I'm convinced that most architects don't design around accessibility; they design the building first, then they go back and try to tack on the required accessible features. And then they complain about how "adding" all the accessible features ruined their beautiful design.

It's a national disgrace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top