What would you do?

[Francis Vineyard]

what would you do if they built a wall in the center of the space?What would you do if they locked the required exit door?

restrooms are a health issue

a. send a notice of violation to apply for and obtain a building permit.

b. Fire Marshals jurisdiction.

c. health department jurisdiction.

 

[jar546]

Once a building has been given a CO the building department is done. How a business owner controls the operation of the amenities within that building is outside the scope of the building code. If the owner does not want to turn the heat on for his customers that is his prerogative. Same with locking the doors to the restrooms. If he wants to control access to his restrooms that is his prerogative. Now there may be something in other state or local laws that say different but as a building inspector you do not have the authority to enforce those provisions.

[A] 101.2 Scope.

The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.

Did you not read that part?

 

[mark handler]

I don't think we're talking about selective enforcement. At least not around here - can't speak for anyone else. It's an issue of authority, right to enter, jurisdiction, and manpower. We occasionally get ADA complaints through our office. We refer them to the ADA coordinator at city hall. Ultimately, ADA violations NOT involving an open building permit fall under the jurisdiction of the DOJ.

Enforce chapter 11 and the plumbing code not the ADA

Plumbing code requires separate restrooms. They locked one, chapter 11 and ansi117.1 requires the access

Nothing about enforcing ADA

 

[jar546]

Uh, this is a plumbing code issue too ya know. It's not just an ADA issue.

 

[mark handler]

Refer them to the Independence Resource Center (IRC).

Which is why there are lawsuits, building officials and inspectors not doing their job.

 

[mark handler]

Uh, this is a plumbing code issue too ya know. It's not just an ADA issue.

Health and Safety, selectively enforced

 

[fatboy]

If they change the mean of egress, then you can come back to them through the fire code, but you won't get to restroom enforcment there.

 

[fatboy]

Just read post #26 above, might have to rethink old training............

 

[mtlogcabin]

Did you not read that part?

Technically it is a restaurant assembly occupancy but classified as a "Group B" use because the occupant load is less than 50. That is what the terms use and occupancy refer to in the building code

As long as the building is maintained in a safe and sanitary condition and all required safe guards and devices are maintained the owner is in compliance with the building code.

Your example in the OP has a simple code solution that I outlined in post #6.

It is a facilities management problem not a code issue.

 

[mark handler]

Just read post #26 above, might have to rethink old training............

 

[Darren Emery]

OK - let's hear the other side of the argument. What should the building department do given the original statement. Procedurally, how does a building inspector make the business owner unlock the bathroom?

Or - how about we take it another step: let's say the appropriate number of properly constructed bathrooms are present. No lock on any door, but when a patron heads to the restroom, the manager says "sorry - employee's only". Should the local building inspector get that call?

 

[mtlogcabin]

You are saying you do not enforce building/plumbing code violations after the CO?

No I never said that

Sticking with the OP My state allows an owner in a small establishment to control access to the restrooms so this is common where I am living

If the building or plumbing system was not safe or sanitary then the building code can be used to enforce corrections.

As you pointed out denying access to an accessible restroom for a handicap person would be a health issue not a building code maintenance issue.

 

[mark handler]

No I never said thatSticking with the OP My state allows an owner in a small establishment to control access to the restrooms so this is common where I am living

If the building or plumbing system was not safe or sanitary then the building code can be used to enforce corrections.

As you pointed out denying access to an accessible restroom for a handicap person would be a health issue not a building code maintenance issue.

SECTION 104 DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE CODE OFFICIAL

104.6 Notices and orders.

The code official shall issue all necessary notices or orders to ensure compliance with this code.

IPC SECTION 404 ACCESSIBLE PLUMBING FACILITIES

404.1 Where required.

Accessible plumbing facilities and fixtures shall be provided in accordance with the International Building Code.

403.2 Separate facilities.

Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate facilities shall be provided for each sex.

403.3 Required public toilet facilities.

Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization. The number of plumbing fixtures located within the required toilet facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 403 for all users. Employees shall be provided with toilet facilities in all occupancies. Employee toilet facilities shall be either separate or combined employee and public toilet facilities.

Anything you can do not to do your job

 

[mtlogcabin]

OK - let's hear the other side of the argument. What should the building department do given the original statement. Procedurally, how does a building inspector make the business owner unlock the bathroom?

Usually through threats and or intimidation by pulling out a big sledge hammer that sounds menacing

[A] 111.4 Revocation.

The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.

 

[Darren Emery]

Anything you can do not to do your job

That was a bit over the top...

 

[steveray]

OK - let's hear the other side of the argument. What should the building department do given the original statement. Procedurally, how does a building inspector make the business owner unlock the bathroom? Or - how about we take it another step: let's say the appropriate number of properly constructed bathrooms are present. No lock on any door, but when a patron heads to the restroom, the manager says "sorry - employee's only". Should the local building inspector get that call?

First you have to prove how the building was built and what codes and what was required, then you have to prove it was altered and that alteration is a violation. Then you get to send a certified violation letter. When they don't pick that up you need to have them served, then you need to give them time to correct, then you have to prove they didn't correct, then you go to court, maybe the judge orders something, maybe then he complies, maybe not. Then you go to court again, maybe he is in contempt maybe not.....and on and on for about 6 times and then maybe you can get a resolution....

Threats are waaaaaayyyy easier than all of that......Not that I am much of a threatener....I just tell them that I will get compliance and our State's Attorneys office is pretty good with us for backup or will smack us down if we are being overreaching...

 

[mark handler]

D e l e t e

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Did you not read that part?

see section 102.6 and chapter 34 applicable on occupancy and accessibility when a permit would be required.

 

[steveray]

see section 102.6 and chapter 34 applicable on occupancy and accessibility when a permit would be required.

I think ALTER covers it........

SECTION 105 PERMITS

105.1 Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.

102.6 Existing structures. The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue WITHOUT CHANGE,.....

SECTION 114 VIOLATIONS

114.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish or occupy any building, structure or equipment regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of ANY of the provisions of this code.

2902.2 Separate facilities. Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate facilities shall be provided for each sex. [P]

1109.2 Toilet and bathing facilities. Each toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible. Where a floor level is not required to be connected by an accessible route, the only toilet rooms or bathing rooms provided within the facility shall not be located on the inaccessible floor. At least one of each type of fixture, element, control or dispenser in each accessible toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Sorry Mark I am a UPC state and accessibility is not in that code

As for the IPC Section 403.3.6 allows for a lock on the door if it is a single user toilet room. Change the sign and call it a "Family Restroom" and it is code compliant. If the door gets locked when the last person (employee) used the room leaves then you would need to get management to open the door. If they refused then you have a really good "civil case" that you can pursue.

Been here 10 years and have had this come up twice. 1st one I e-mailed the legal department of the major chain store about the incident and it was rectified and the effected party received a letter of apology and a gift card. The 2nd was similar to Francis picture. The judge did not want the public to have easy a access to her office and staff which was located across the hall from the public restrooms. Informed her they where the only ADA restrooms in the building and it was a civil rights violation. She relented and removed the signs stating not a public restroom.

Not every resolution requires a heavy hand of enforcement. This owner just needs to be "educated" about what was required for his operation. Regardless if it is the accessible restroom or the non-compliant restroom that he is keeping locked he must provide access when requested by a customer. If it is John Doe off the street then as a business owner I believe he has the right to deny access.

 

[mark handler]

Not every resolution requires a heavy hand of enforcement. This owner just needs to be "educated" about what was required for his operation.

I agree

99 percent of the time a talk works.

 

[ICE]

I have never been put to the test. Since the issue is accessibility. Oh sure there is a PPP {perceived plumbing problem} but the real trouble is the loss of an accessible restroom. I would tell the owner that they are sitting ducks in the cross-hairs of the evil side of business.

Let's say I enforced a PPP imaginary code to fix an ADA problem.....where would that stop.....you get that ball rolling down hill and you may get run over.

 

[jar546]

I am glad that I started this thread. I knew that this is what it would turn into.

When you mix government employees with ZERO incentive to get off of their ***** and the only concern with each day is what to have for lunch, and only obligation is to make sure they make it to their publicly funded pension, you have a recipe for L A Z I N E S S. Basically people spend more time and effort figuring out how to not do their job rather than just do it. Why? Because there is no incentive, because they are lazy, because it does not affect them, because they would rather be the good guy, because, because, because. All that this would cause would be more work and God forbid someone has to actually work for a living. These are the guys that I would never hire, these are the guys that have a zero chance of ever being self employed, these are the guys that have no sense of urgency other than when they have to go to the bathroom.

I think that this industry is loaded with lazy, useless, self-serving government employees that can't think outside of a box and have no desire to do so anyway. How is that for an opinion? I wonder how many people are ****ed off by this post?

 

[mark handler]

And the amazing thing is, people still think it is an ADA issue and not a Plumbing/Building code issue.....amazing