• 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.

South Carolina Accessible apartment conflict with IBC and South Carolina law - help

K

KMEARC

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
10
Hi. I'm designing a development - apartments and other residential-type buildings. The state of South Carolina uses IBC 2018. It outlines that I must have at least 2% type A units and the remaining units type B (for grade-level dwelling units)- totally fine.

The issue is that the SC legislature / state code says it must be 5%. It also says, "with the exception of one and two family dwellings and other residential buildings to be offered for sale, every building or structure shall have all levels and areas made accessible to disabled persons in accordance with ICC A11.7.1"

That's further than ADA requirements. I'm not trying to skirt the code but more unravel the conflicts. If I have townhouses over flats - a typical scenario, the upper townhouses and the floors don't need accessible access to all floors.

Come on smart people! I've included clips of both code sections.



1734032948072.png1734033166927.png
 
I'd bet this exists in your code too:

[A] 102.1 General. Where there is a conflict between a
general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific
requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case,
different sections of this code specify different materials,
methods of construction or other requirements, the most
restrictive shall govern.
[A] 102.2 Other laws. The provisions of this code shall not
be deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal
law.
 
The big question is whether your proposed apartment development is considered a government building or public building.
Look at the next section 8-702 for the scoping of the 8-701 statement:

(A) There shall be no construction, alteration or leasing of a government building nor construction or renovation of a public building except in conformity with these Regulations. If the occupancy as defined in the Building Code adopted by Section 6-9-50, of an existing building is changed, that building shall be made to conform to the requirements of these Regulations for the new occupancy. If the occupancy of a portion of an existing building is changed, then only such portion which is changed shall comply.​

Notes​

S.C. Code Regs. § 8-702​
Added by State Register Volume 32, Issue No. 6, eff June 27, 2008.​

Is your apartment a private development? If so, is it possible that 8-701 doesn't apply?
 
Last edited:
bill1952 said:
It seems the SC legislation requires visitability.
Click to expand...
If it really is applicable to this project, then they want much more than just visitability to your neighbor's front door.
"Every building... shall have all... areas accessible." All areas means no townhomes without elevators. Every bathroom (not just one) needs to be accessible. Every kitchen. Every closet. Heck, even back of house mechanical rooms would need to be accessible under the all-inclusive umbrella of "all areas".
 
What is SC definition of a "Government or Public Building"? Does it mean the government or public owns it and uses it or rents a private building for itself or it owns it but rents it to a person or company?
 
KMEARC said:
That's further than ADA requirements.
Click to expand...
ADAS is the minimum requirement. Almost every state has something (usually a lot of things) in their code that's more strict than ADA.

As long as a state meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of ADAS, there's no conflict. Use the stricter language.
 
This is not a public project so any governmental loopholes don't apply. I don't really care about the percentage - not a huge deal but it's concerning the requirement to provide access to each floor.
Yikes said:
The big question is whether your proposed apartment development is considered a government building or public building.
Look at the next section 8-702 for the scoping of the 8-701 statement:

(A) There shall be no construction, alteration or leasing of a government building nor construction or renovation of a public building except in conformity with these Regulations. If the occupancy as defined in the Building Code adopted by Section 6-9-50, of an existing building is changed, that building shall be made to conform to the requirements of these Regulations for the new occupancy. If the occupancy of a portion of an existing building is changed, then only such portion which is changed shall comply.​

Notes​

S.C. Code Regs. § 8-702​
Added by State Register Volume 32, Issue No. 6, eff June 27, 2008.​

Is your apartment a private development? If so, is it possible that 8-701 doesn't apply?
Click to expand...
It is definitely private. The AHJ believes the code section applies. I don't really care about the percentage of units, more related to the other floors. Do they need to be accessible? There's no other state or jurisdiction which has ever taken this stance. It's an overly broad law.

1734042881166.png
 
KMEARC said:
This is not a public project so any governmental loopholes don't apply. I don't really care about the percentage - not a huge deal but it's concerning the requirement to provide access to each floor.

It is definitely private. The AHJ believes the code section applies. I don't really care about the percentage of units, more related to the other floors. Do they need to be accessible? There's no other state or jurisdiction which has ever taken this stance. It's an overly broad law.
Click to expand...
I'm not all that familiar with your state's laws, but ICC A117.1 only requires accessible units to be on an accessible path as far as I see:
1734043746922.png

Since SC8-701 directly references A117.1, I would think the language used in A117.1 would be applicable. Yeah, sure, the language of 8-701 says that "all areas" need to be accessible, but only in accordance to what A117.1 calls for.

You could request a interpretation by the Accessibility Committee. See below. I doubt they'd be any more strict than the AHJ is.

1734043891799.png
 
If they are rental units then 8-701(B) would apply - 5% accessible but not less than one.

If they are for sale 8-701(A) exempts them from having to be fully accessible. The building code and HUD Fair Housing Amendments would apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top