Turning space within an accessible toilet compartment

[jar546]

I was just audited by L&I today and they chose to surprise visit 2 places that I had issued c of o's to.

Apparently, I learned something today. (not really)

The auditor wanted a 60" circle within the toilet compartment for turning space, EVEN though we exceeded all of the requirements under 604.8, including toe clearance.

There is a 72" turning space within the room, just not within the toilet compartment.

He wrote me up for that one.

WTF?

By the way, 3rd audit in a month.

 

[Codegeek]

Does your state have an accessibility code that is more restrictive than IBC or ADA?

 

[SCBO1]

Thanks for the heads up jar, is the compartment required?

Your allowed 56" depth on a wall hanger and 59" on a floor mount crapper! will that help you meet the code requirements?

pc1

 

[mark handler]

Thanks for the heads up jar, is the compartment required? Your allowed 56" depth on a wall hanger and 59" on a floor mount crapper! will that help you meet the code requirements?

pc1

 

[jar546]

The turning space within the toilet compartment is not required. The interior of the compartment in question is > 60 x 60. He is wrong.

 

[ewenme]

Jar:

I don't know if you've looked at the ICC A117.1 Standard, but there is a new change: 603.2.1 Turning Space. A turning space complying with Section 304 shall be provided within the room. The required turning space shall nopt be provided within a toilet compartment. You need to protest that 'write-up' loud and long. Sounds like you were already in compliance.

 

[jar546]

Just got an email from Kim Paarlberg confirming that I am correct. The auditor is incorrect. We have no other restrictions other than the black and white in the ANSI

 

[RJJ]

I just love PA! Now who would you argue with Mr. B is gone and the new guy is from the elevator division. Got to love L&I

 

[jar546]

Rich, Jerry S. from L&I was notified and he is correcting the problem. He also agrees with myself, Kim Paarlberg and the rest of the accessibility inspectors in the country.

 

[pmarx]

jar546, glad it was resolved in your favor. I'm not in PA but for the few design projects I've been involved with, L&I was always reasonable. I remember in one case they granted a variance for the handicapped parking stalls not to be the closest to the building entrance. Because of the site, the length of travel on the ramp we would have had to install was longer and steeper than the straight shot walk (not even technically a ramp).

 

[RJJ]

Well Jerry is most often a good man. Glad to hear that he is willing to correct one of the L&I inspectors. Sometimes I just take the hit and not willing to fight.