• 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.

What we DIDN'T check...

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,968
Location
Southern California
JamesS' other thread got me to thinking: do any of you building officials have a courtesy stamp or a notice that you attach onto the permit set of plans to remind building owners that you do NOT check plans for ADA / FHA compliance, and that such compliance is their own responsibility?

If so, what is the wording that you use?
 
We attach a notice saying simply "**** County does not enforce the Federal ADA" and provide an 800 number for the Federal ADA and a list of the codes we do enforce.

GPE
 
Our permit form has a statement that the designer or owner has to register the project with the state accessibilty agency, comply with the state accessiblity code, pay the fees to the state agency for their review and inspection. It also states that ADA is the building owner and designer's responsibility. The owner has to sign the bottom of that page stating that they have read and understood the above for the permit to be valid.
 
The city of xxxxxxx cannot and does not in any way represent, advise or guarantee that your compliance with the building code will prevent liability for violations of the americans with disabilities act.
 

It is on our permit

24.301.902 DISCLAIMER (1) A building permit or certificate of occupancy issued by the state or a municipality or county must contain a statement that reads: "Compliance with the requirements of the state building code for physical accessibility to persons with disabilities does not necessarily guarantee compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Title 49, chapter 2, commonly known as the Montana Human Rights Act or other similar federal, state or local laws that mandate accessibility to commercial construction or multifamily housing." (History: 50-60-203, MCA; IMP, 50-60-201, MCA; NEW, 1997 MAR p. 2061, Eff. 11/18/97; TRANS, from Commerce, 2001 MAR p. 2301.)

​
ADMINISTRATIVE

 
Just in case you're curious - as architects, our liability insurance company likes us to have this clause in our contract, especially when working with existing nonconforming facilities and limited budgets:

"The Architect will exercise his professional effort to interpret the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and other applicable state, local and federal requirements. The Architect cannot and does not guarantee that his interpretation of the ADA will be the same as other interpretations and, therefore, cannot guarantee the buildings or project's compliance. The Architect cannot provide recommendations or advice concerning which requirements or measures may or may not be "reasonable" or "readily achievable", nor can the Architect determine the priorities or phasing of selected measures. These issues must be addressed by the Owner with assistance from his or her financial and legal counsel.
 
This is an interesting discussion. While we don't enforce the Federal ADA, we do enforce Chapter 11 of the IBC, and we adopt the ANSI/ICC A117.1 Standards for reference. In Idaho we are compelled by the State to have an accessible route, parking, signage, restroom(s) and dwelling units of Type A and B in apartment buildings. The rest of the ADA requirements 'are at the designer's and owner's discretion and liability' and that is what we tell them. Now I'm wondering if we should put it in writing on the plans. Thanks for the Christmas present ! :-(
 
I have an existing doctor's office being renovated to continue being a doctor's office.

The RDP has indicated that new windows between the office staff & patients waiting area

will be installed at 48" above the finished floor surfaces. Does this height meet ADA

reqs.? If someone in a wheelchair comes to the windows, are they being afforded

accessibility to the office staff/"Check-In" window ( RE: Section 1109.12.3 in the

2006 IBC )?

Yes, I am aware that we AHJ's do not enforce the ADA requirements, but I still want

to know. Thanks! :)

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Customer Service Counters:

If you have adopted the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Standard, then yes, a portion of this service window should comply.

This portion shall be 36” AFF maximum and allow either a front approach with knee and toe clearance or a parallel approach, with this portion being 36” in width minimum (ANSI A117.1-2003, 904)

You wouldn't be enforcing the ADA but the building code
 
Jim B.,

Thanks for the input! That's what I thought too! Our AHJ has not adopted the ANSI 117.1.

We can still apply Section 1109.12.3 in the IBC, ...yes?

.
 
OK...this is probably a dumb question, but being a non-code-official, I have always thought that the building inspector enforced the accessibility requirements. In Massachusetts we have our own accessibility standards, and other states in New England use A117.1. If the building inspectors aren't responsible for looking at the accessibility, who is? Is there somewhere for plans to be submitted just for an accessibility review?
 
LGreene said:
OK...this is probably a dumb question, but being a non-code-official, I have always thought that the building inspector enforced the accessibility requirements. In Massachusetts we have our own accessibility standards, and other states in New England use A117.1. If the building inspectors aren't responsible for looking at the accessibility, who is? Is there somewhere for plans to be submitted just for an accessibility review?
Click to expand...
Not a dumb question at all. For years, I thought all inspectors inspected for ADA compliance. It depends upon the state. Here in Kansas - state statute requires review for ADA compliance by the AHJ only when a permit is issued.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there somewhere for plans to be submitted just for an accessibility review?
Click to expand...
No but click on the link below for a regional office that helps with technical questions. I have refered a couple of Architects to the Rocky Mt Regional Office for our area and they where extremely helpful, offered suggestions but as always they would not put a stamp of approval on or review a projects drawings for compliance.

http://www.adata.org/Static/Home.aspx
 
2 Entirely Different Beasts: Code Access Reqmts & ADA Access Reqmts

LGreene said:
OK...this is probably a dumb question, but being a non-code-official, I have always thought that the building inspector enforced the accessibility requirements. In Massachusetts we have our own accessibility standards, and other states in New England use A117.1. If the building inspectors aren't responsible for looking at the accessibility, who is? Is there somewhere for plans to be submitted just for an accessibility review?
Click to expand...
I agree with Darren that this is not a dumb question but a commonly misunderstood issue. In most jurisdictions (AHJs) that enforce accessibility, the AHJ is actually enforcing the portions of the building code and/or other local ordinances that deal with access. In CA, for example, each building official enforces the accessibility requirements of the CBC (based on IBC). The ADA, however, as federal law, usually has only one enforcement mechanism: the civil legal system (tort law, lawsuit, threat of lawsuit, etc.).

Unfortunately (imho), this really means: ADA issues are less often dealt with logically, completely, and at the appropriate time (e.g. fixing an issue during construction). I really appreciate the idea and practice suggested here that the AHJ stamp the drawings and/or the permit materials with a note that serves as further notice/warning to owners. While ignorance of the law may not be an excuse, such ignorance hardly furthers the goals of the barrier-free movement!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top