# What would you do?



## jar546

I'm always surprised at the variety of answers for any given situation so I would like to offer this one and ask what would you do if it was your jurisdiction?

You have a fast food style restaurant with an Occupant load just under 50 that has two bathrooms.  One bathroom is handicapped accessible and the other bathroom is not.  Both bathrooms are marked as unisex.

The owner locks the accessible bathroom and labeled it as employees only only leaving one not accessible bathroom for all customers.  What would you do if anything to correct this?


----------



## cda

Post sign if you need assistance please ask

Or

Have them move the employee bathroom to the other one

????


----------



## steveray

If I "have" it then I am the owner and I guess I would lock it....But seriously.....I would tell them they can't do that, ask for compliance, step 2 a bunch of research and paperwork, concurrent step 2, Call DOJ....Nothing will straighten them out like having the fed's on them....


----------



## Rick18071

I will do nothing if they don't have a permit for work on the restrooms.


----------



## fatboy

Pass along some friendly advice to the establishment that they violating federal law, and as such open to lawsuits from the public and prosecution from the  DOJ, and walk away.


----------



## mtlogcabin

If it is a single water closet toilet room then have him remove the "employee only" sign and replace it with "Family Toilet" sign. He will be compliant then

P] 2902.3.5  Door locking.

Where a toilet room is provided for the use of multiple occupants, the egress door for the room shall not be lockable from the inside of the room. This section does not apply to family or assisted-use toilet rooms.

The code does allow the locking of a toilet room so add a sign to ask management for the key


----------



## Mech

Is this new construction or recent enough that it warrants accessible restrooms?  By today's codes and the occupant loading, 2 separate sex restrooms are required.  (I do not have a problem with two uni-sex restrooms in lieu of a men's and women's restroom.)

Stage an "accident" and call for "Clean-up on Aisle 4."


----------



## Daddy-0-

Got a mop?


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Since I don't patronize them is this prevalent with fast food restaurants?

Being hearing impaired I should not believe everything I think I heard (or read for that matter). While I was talking occupant load of 15, 500 travel distance, etc., apparently the judge interrupted his court room and announced the fix;


----------



## Pcinspector1

I would wait for Mark Handler to chime in first?  

Probably notify the ADA advocate to pay a visit.

Have an "accident" outside the locked door? Who's going to call the "cops!"

pc1


----------



## David Henderson

Jar I don't know of anything in the code that lets me do anything until they apply for a permit.


----------



## jar546

*Let me add some information here:

You are there because you received a written complaint at the municipality for this situation after the complainant tried to get the owner to correct this on his own.


----------



## Darren Emery

jar546 said:
			
		

> *Let me add some information here:You are there because you received a written complaint at the municipality for this situation after the complainant tried to get the owner to correct this on his own.


Question:  are you there as a building inspector, or the AHJ ADA coordinator?


----------



## mark handler

separate sex restrooms are required, building inspectors should cite, before a disabled person, cr*ps on the floor in front of the service line, and sues

For existing facilities, i would probably accept the two unisex restrooms But not employee only


----------



## mtlogcabin

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.


----------



## mark handler

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


----------



## Francis Vineyard

"The building code is not a maintenance document requiring periodic inspections that will, in turn, result in an enforcement action, although periodic inspections are addressed by the _International Fire Code_® (IFC®)."

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2009f2cc/icod_ibc_2009f2cc_1_sec002.htm


----------



## mark handler

What would you do if someone complains to your department?


----------



## mark handler

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


----------



## Darren Emery

opcorn  NOW we're getting to the heart of the matter.  This is getting interesting!


----------



## mark handler

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> opcorn  NOW we're getting to the heart of the matter.  This is getting interesting!


Selective enforcement? That's why we have lawsuits... "Access, not my job"...


----------



## Darren Emery

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.


----------



## Darren Emery

mark handler said:
			
		

> Selective enforcement? That's why we have lawsuits... "Access, not my job"...


BTW - Pull a permit, and access is certainly my job.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

mark handler said:
			
		

> What would you do if someone complains to your department?


Refer them to the Independence Resource Center (IRC).


----------



## Francis Vineyard

mark handler said:
			
		

> 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

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> 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

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Refer them to the Independence Resource Center (IRC).


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


----------



## mark handler

jar546 said:
			
		

> 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

jar546 said:
			
		

> 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

fatboy said:
			
		

> 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

mark handler said:
			
		

> 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

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> 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

mark handler said:
			
		

> *Anything you can do not to do your job*


That was a bit over the top...


----------



## steveray

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> 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

jar546 said:
			
		

> 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

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> 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

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Pcinspector1

Boy, we sure have come a long way from borrowing the bathroom key that's attached to a car wheel to use a gas station toilet, haven't we?

Pc1


----------



## mark handler

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Boy, we sure have come a long way from borrowing the bathroom key that's attached to a car wheel to use a gas station toilet, haven't we?Pc1


At least you could use the restroom....


----------



## MASSDRIVER

*"403.2 Separate facilities. *

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

Men.

Women.

Transsexuals, male to female.

Transsexuals, female to male.

Transsexuals, Male to female, identifying as male

Transsexuals, Female, to male, identifying as female

Transsexuals, male to female, identifying as female

Transsexuals, female to male, identifying as male

Lesbian, identifying as female

Lesbian, identifying as male

Gay, identifying as male

Gay, identifying as female

Decline to state

Other

Just make it all unisex. I can blow up a bathroom and make just as uninhabitable as any woman can. Well, most any woman.

As for the owner, he could just pull the sign, and tell everybody to pound sand and say its not locked. If some nosy building inspector dropped by I would tell him it's occupied. Go away.

Just because a BO does not get involved in business that's not his does not make him lazy. He can keep himself busy with inspections, his real job.

Brent.


----------



## mjesse

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> He can keep himself busy with inspections, his real job.


I thought our real job was to tell everyone how superior we are to them?


----------



## steveray

mark handler said:
			
		

> At least you could use the restroom....


I don't know.....most people couldn't handle the car wheel and I don't know if it satisfied the "closed fist" criteria.....


----------



## Darren Emery

jar546 said:
			
		

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


I'm glad you started this one as well.

In many ways, I find these type of discussions much more interesting than straight forward code questions.  Having come to municipal government 19 years ago, with nothing but an entrepreneurial background, I have spent a lot of time, energy, and effort trying to bring a business ownership mentality and accountability into local government.

The bigger picture question of what drives an AHJ can be encouraging, fascinating, or down right scary, depending upon who's steering the ship.

What's our true north?  Answers vary greatly, depending upon who you ask, and whether they are willing to give an honest answer:

The greater common good.

A safer built environment.

Doing the right thing.

Avoiding catastrophe.

Protecting an ignorant public.

Happy tax payers.

Non-complaining tax payers.

Job security.

A paycheck.

Beer 30.

My guess is those that are tic'd off at Jar's statements have their compass tied pretty closely to the bottom of that list.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

mjesse said:
			
		

> I thought our real job was to tell everyone how superior we are to them?


That goes without saying.

I meant _after_ that.  

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

I also agree how revealing g this thread is.

The obvious answer as a building official, or even someone that knows what the rules are, is to just visit and inform the guy that what he is doing is in violation of whatever code he is in violation of (which is unclear) and document the visit.

Apparently there are those carrying chips on their shoulders and are to mete out justice.

What are you, Batman?

How about a little critical thinking here.

It's possible, knowing how uncaring your average customer can be, that he reasonably likes to keep one bathroom clean for employees, an actual, REAL health concern (they are serving food) and figures he can reasonably unlock it in case a handicapper needs it.  His motives may be pure, not some diabolical plot to keep handicappers out of the restroom.

A simple explanation is all that's needed. Not some self grandising administrative assault.

Geez.

Brent


----------



## Mech

*IBC 3411.2 Maintenance of facilities.*

 A facility that is constructed or altered to be _accessible _shall be  maintained  _accessible _during occupancy.


----------



## ICE

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> that he reasonably likes to keep one bathroom clean


Just put MEN on the door.


----------



## mark handler

ICE said:
			
		

> Just put MEN on the door.


Does not resolve all issues in OP


----------



## MASSDRIVER

mark handler said:
			
		

> Does not resolve all issues in OP


Have another scotch.

You will eventually get it.  

Brent.


----------



## north star

*~ = ~ = ~*





> *"Jar I don't know of anything in the code that lets me do anything until they apply for a permit."*






> *"*Let me add some information here:**You are there because you received a written complaint at the  municipality for this*
> 
> *situation after the complainant tried to get the  owner to correct this on his own."*


*"IF"* the IPMC has been adopted in that jurisdiction, then the Code Official is directed to \shall enforce the requirements of this code. 

From the `12 IPMC, *SECTION 104 - DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE CODE OFFICIAL:*

*[A] 104.1 General:* 

"The code official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the  provisions of this code.

The code official shall have the authority to render  interpretations of this code and to adopt

policies and procedures in order to clarify  the application of its provisions..........Such

interpretations, policies and procedures  shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose

of this code..................Such policies and  procedures shall not have the effect of waiving

requirements specifically provided  for in this code.*"*

This particular section of the IPMC "requires" the Code Official to respond to violations,

or potential violations in the community........A "due dilgence" investigation is required.

That investigation must be in writing and thoroughly documented throughout its entire

process.

Initially, it would be just good common sense to conduct a visit to the site in question,

...document thru written reports and with pictures.  [ FWIW, ...non-altered, clear,

actual dated pictures carry a lot of weight in a court of law.  ], ...form a Plan of

Action to address the violation(s) or potential violation(s), and to most certainly discuss

& include the jurisdictional legal department in the Plan of Action, then to contact the

owner & occupant of the premises, of the investigation........Maybe just talking with the

individuals; and by all means "documenting thoroughly" the initial visit, ...will bring a

reasonable, non-"heavy-handed", compliant solution........If not, then proceed to the

next step in the process, ...usually an official Notice of Violation(s) sent thru the U.S.

Postal Service, or in person [ <----- with a legible signature  ] on any Notices delivered

& received.

I won't bore you all with the sections in the IPMC that provide the authority to

address such issues that ***jar546*** asked in the OP, but the authority and

responsibility to act is there !

Essentially, ...IMO, 2 separate unisex toilets AND access to them is required !

Section 2902.3.1 [ in the `12 IBC  ]  and Section 403.3 [ in the `12 IPC ]

requires access to public toilets whether or not the Public actual purchase

anything or not  [ *RE: **[P] 2902.3.1- Access: "*The route to the public toilet

facilities required by Section 2902.3  shall not pass through kitchens, storage

rooms or closets..........Access to the  required facilities shall be from within

the building or from the exterior  of the building...........All routes shall comply

with the accessibility requirements  of this code...........The public shall have

access to the required toilet facilities  at all times that the building is

occupied."  ] 

*~ = ~ = ~*


----------



## Francis Vineyard

In accordance with IPMC [A]102.7 and [A]102.7.2 only requires that plumbing facilities be sanitary and in working condition; I cannot find reference to ICC/ANSI provisions.    http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/accessibility/367-maintenance-ada-installations.html


----------



## jar546

I'm going to chime in agains since my little tirade.  Most of you seem to be forgetting to read the IPC and how it is different than the other adopted codes.

First and foremost, this is a plumbing issue which is causing an accessibility issue.

Unlike the other I-Codes, the IPC has a little known sentence at the end of 102.3 that says:



> To determine compliance with this provision, the code official shall have the authority to require any plumbing system to be reinspected.


----------



## mark handler

Jeff

Some states alter the scoping sections and many are still using the UPC as the base code.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

jar546 said:
			
		

> I'm going to chime in agains since my little tirade.  Most of you seem to be forgetting to read the IPC and how it is different than the other adopted codes.First and foremost, this is a plumbing issue which is causing an accessibility issue.
> 
> Unlike the other I-Codes, the IPC has a little known sentence at the end of 102.3 that says:


it means the plumbing system as defined in the IPC?


----------



## jar546

102.3 is in the Maintenance portion of the code.

Many do use the UPC and many do alter the scoping sections.

Many do not and many use the IPC and adopt is as written.

This entire issue can be easily handled with a simple visit and discussion with the owner but not everyone feels the need to stop by after a written complaint is received unless it is near a donut shop.


----------



## ICE

jar546 said:
			
		

> not everyone feels the need to stop by after a written complaint is received unless it is near a donut shop.


  I'm beginning to think that you must have recently had an "accident".  Try keeping a jar in the car Jar.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

ICE said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to think that you must have recently had an "accident".  Try keeping a jar in the car Jar.


He keeps looking down trying to find out where his "unisex" is.

I think it's an east coast thing.

Brent.


----------



## ICE

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> He keeps looking down trying to find out where his "unisex" is. I think it's an east coast thing.
> 
> Brent.


Well Brent....that's sure to get him going.  Might even be a shlt storm headed west.


----------



## BSSTG

jar546 said:
			
		

> *Let me add some information here:You are there because you received a written complaint at the municipality for this situation after the complainant tried to get the owner to correct this on his own.


Tell the complainant it's a civil matter and he needs to hire an attorney.

BS


----------



## jar546

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Tell the complainant it's a civil matter and he needs to hire an attorney. BS


So part of the reason for excessive litigation is the lack of enforcement by code officials who refuse to perform their job as outlined in the administration sections of the applicable codes?


----------



## mark handler

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Tell the complainant it's a civil matter and he needs to hire an attorney. BS


Which goes to the reason Jeff posted the issue, it is NOT just a civil matter, it is a code compliance issue. Building Officials Enforce the compliance of all the codes, not just the ones they like or agree to.

Government officials are immune from certain types of lawsuits, but  failure to discharge the duty could negate that immunity.


----------



## ICE

mark handler said:
			
		

> failure to discharge the duty could negate that immunity.


When has that been relevant?   Have there been cases that succeeded against an AHJ?  The issue would be a willful decision to not enforce a code provision.

If that were the happening thing....well then plss poor jurisdictions should get sued out of business.


----------



## mark handler

ICE said:
			
		

> When has that been relevant?   Have there been cases that succeeded against an AHJ?  The issue would be a willful decision to not enforce a code provision.


Well that seens to be the case.  It is the Building Officials responsibility to enforce the codes. This is a willful, definitive, decision Not to enforece certain code provisions the posters disagree with.

That said a two second talk with the owner might solve the issue,


----------



## ICE

mark handler said:
			
		

> That said a two second talk with the owner might solve the issue


With the exception of the OP, that seems to be about all you're going to get out of the crowd here.


----------



## mark handler

ICE said:
			
		

> ...that seems to be about all you're going to get out of the crowd here.


If just one person gets it, all is good.... can't eliminate all the misunderstandings of the code in one thread.


----------



## conarb

Mark:

Do you enforce Prop 65, or leave it to private parties to bring legal actions?



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Enforcement is carried out through civil lawsuits against Proposition 65 violators. These lawsuits may be brought by the California Attorney General, any district attorney, or certain city attorneys  (those in cities with a population exceeding 750,000). Lawsuits may  also be brought by private parties "acting in the public interest," but  only after providing notice of the alleged violation to the Attorney  General, the appropriate district attorney and city attorney, and the  business accused of the violation. ¹


¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_65


----------



## jar546

Why are you guys only looking at ADA when this is an IPC issue first and foremost which leads to an ADA issue.  Many states elect to enforce accessibility.


----------



## mark handler

conarb said:
			
		

> Mark: Do you enforce Prop 65, or leave it to private parties to bring legal actions?¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_65


No, The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) administers the Proposition 65 program.

I would refer the resident to them. I do require a list of hazardous materials per the building and fire codes; And that becomes public.

Just so you know, In my office I have a binder of over 250 pages listing California state laws, rules and regulations I am required to address in one way or another, Prop 65 is not one of them.


----------



## mark handler

jar546 said:
			
		

> Why are you guys only looking at ADA when this is an IPC issue first and foremost which leads to an ADA issue.  Many states elect to enforce accessibility.


Because all issues that involve accessibility is clouded.

Selective enforcement, Many would have had different answers if you would have posted the question without any mention of Accessibility.

It is similar to two defendants in court, all circumstances the same except one white kid, one black, you can predict the outcome, 9 times out of ten. White suspended….black convicted….


----------



## conarb

mark handler said:
			
		

> It is similar to two defendants in court, all circumstances the same except one white kid, one black, you can predict the outcome, 9 times out of ten. White suspended….black convicted….


With cities all over the country getting military equipment, with what's happening right now in Missouri, what are the chances that it will be used against us if we violate disability, green, or energy codes?



			
				Business Insider said:
			
		

> Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on  civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can  plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the  property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find  drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too.  He must sue to get them back. Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of  their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset  Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset  Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion.
> 
> Mr Balko contends that these forfeiture laws are "unfair on a very  basic level". They "disproportionately affect low-income people" and  provide a perverse incentive for police to focus on drug-related crimes,  which "come with a potential kickback to the police department", rather  than rape and murder investigations, which do not. They also provide an  incentive to arrest suspected drug-dealers inside their houses, which  can be seized, and to bust stash houses after most of their drugs have  been sold, when police can seize the cash.
> 
> Kara Dansky of the American Civil Liberties Union, who is overseeing a  study into police militarisation, notices a more martial tone in recent  years in the materials used to recruit and train new police officers. A  recruiting video in Newport Beach, California, for instance, shows  officers loading assault rifles, firing weapons, chasing suspects,  putting people in headlocks and releasing snarling dogs
> 
> Read more:  http://www.businessinsider.com/why-americas-police-are-becoming-so-militarized-2014-3#ixzz3AhjXnc3P


----------



## mark handler

conarb said:
			
		

> With cities all over the country getting military equipment, with what's happening right now in Missouri, what are the chances that it will be used against us if we violate disability, green, or energy codes?


Cute.....Though I do work for the Police Cheif and we do have an M-wrap APC

Do you want that response?

Threaten my inspectors and barricade yourself and we may send a response team...


----------



## conarb

With totalitarian laws like all civil rights laws even the upper classes are scared of all government employees, our first Amendment freedoms including our freedom of association has been suspended.

I built a home for a construction defects attorney in 1978, in the 90s he won the biggest construction defects case ever, $19 million against the architects and contractors who designed and built a condo project, they installed the windows with caulking, hardly a code violation, in fact in compliance with the manufacturers' installation instructions, of course we all know sealants last an average of 7 years before needing replacement.

In 2003 I remodeled the kitchen and the city drove the costs up considerably, no problem. In 2005 he wanted me to add a 200 square foot master bath on to the home, I told him that a home with glass walls like he had couldn't be built anymore without a steel frame, it would cost about $200,000, he said go ahead but don't hire the original architect, find the name of the architect who has the best track record with his city.  After a couple of years of neighborhood meetings, design review meetings, etc, and the architect adding a lot of additional stuff that he was willing to pay for, the city informed me that I needed a landscape architect to design a couple of acre hillside on the back of his house, the city never would accept the submitted designs but suggested that I hire their recommended landscape architect, so I did.  We had a final planning commission meeting, the architect and landscape architect again made their Power Point presentation with everything approved by staff and the Design Review Commission, one of the commissioners said she wanted a 50 year bond for $1 million to guarantee that the landscaping would be watered and maintained, or the city would take over and maintain it with their bond monies.  He asked me how much now, I said we were probably at half a million for the remodeling, but I had no idea the cost of the landscaping and irrigation, but assume a few hundred thousand more, he said okay.  He called the next morning and said to forget the whole thing, building a park for the ****ing city was bad enough, but spending a fortune maintaining a park for the city was too much.

A month ago he called back saying that he had hired another architect to remodel the existing bath, the plans called for no structural changes, can I do it without a permit?   I pointed out disclosure requirements at sale and he intends to retire in a couple of years, he said no problem he would disclose when he sold, that the architect recommended that he not get a permit, she told him that if I got permit the Green Code would make him change plumbing fixtures all over the house to those that little water comes out of, that they will make him get a HERS Rater in and probably replace both furnaces and all ducting in the home.

As far as the public is concerned, lower and upper socioeconomic classes, our government has become totalitarian, time for the





.  BTW, this guy was a Captain in the Marine Corps who served two tours of duty in Viet Nam leading his troops out of helicopters to preserve our freedoms.


----------



## mark handler

And your point would be?


----------



## conarb

mark handler said:
			
		

> And your point would be?


If you can't figure it out, my point is that we are losing all of our freedoms, we are told who we have to do business with, what color we have to paint our houses, what landscaping we have to have, how much water and heat we can use, etc., etc., etc.

*When the Nazis came for the communists,*

*I remained silent;*

*I was not a communist.*

*When they locked up the social democrats,*

*I remained silent;*

*I was not a social democrat.*

*When they came for the trade unionists,*

*I did not speak out;*

*I was not a trade unionist.*

*When they came for the Jews,*

*I remained silent;*

*I wasn't a Jew.*

*When they came for me,*

*there was no one left to speak out.*

*Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller*


----------



## mark handler

conarb said:
			
		

> If you can't figure it out, my point is that we are losing all of our freedoms, we are told who we have to do business with, what color we have to paint our houses, what landscaping we have to have, how much water and heat we can use, etc., etc., etc.*When the Nazis came for the communists,*
> 
> *I remained silent;*
> 
> *I was not a communist.*
> 
> *When they locked up the social democrats,*
> 
> *I remained silent;*
> 
> *I was not a social democrat.*
> 
> *When they came for the trade unionists,*
> 
> *I did not speak out;*
> 
> *I was not a trade unionist.*
> 
> *When they came for the Jews,*
> 
> *I remained silent;*
> 
> *I wasn't a Jew.*
> 
> *When they came for me,*
> 
> *there was no one left to speak out.*
> 
> *Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller*


Boy what a scary mind you live in....You need to get out more

we are not all monsters.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

mark handler said:
			
		

> Boy what a scary mind you live in....You need to get out more we are not all monsters.


You don't have to be a monster to be part of the problem. (I'm not saying you are).

But the point is there never seems to be any pushback on regulation or restriction. It's just "more is better". Does it really seem right that when someone wants to remodel their home they have to landscape and bond for maintenance?

Does that really sound sensible to you?

It reminds me back in 2006 I wanted to buy a lot in Woodland. This is before everything went to total shlt.

The fees and permits alone on the lot would cost me a shade over $80,000. That's before you  could scrape the dirt. So the lot and permits were going to cost over $200,000 and would accommodate no more that 2,100 sq, ft.

There were 2 fees stacked for local parks, upgraded lighting fees, on and on and on. So no house gets built. They were unwavering on costs.

Of course, 3 years later they would beg you to build a chicken coop on the mayors lawn for a 50 dollar permit. There was almost NO building dept in Yolo county for awhile.

Need some common sense.

I'm sure you understand Conarb's point.

Brent.


----------



## conarb

Brent said:
			
		

> that when someone wants to remodel their home they have to landscape and bond for maintenance?Does that really sound sensible to you?


As things turned out with our new Green Code they wouldn't let you landscape that acreage if you wanted to, maybe some drought resistant landscaping.  BTW, a friend took out a permit to do a million dollar remodel in this same town, the Affordable Housing fee was $68,000.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

conarb said:
			
		

> As things turned out with our new Green Code they wouldn't let you landscape that acreage if you wanted to, maybe some drought resistant landscaping.  BTW, a friend took out a permit to do a million dollar remodel in this same town, the Affordable Housing fee was $68,000.


There ya go.

Dueling Bullsh1t.

That's the worst possible scenario.

I friend of mine is part of Atlas heating in San Mateo. They wanted to buy this lot that had an unfinished foundation on it that the bank turned over, and I was being allowed in to sort of get my feet wet and get into the spec market. This was a place in the hills overlooking Burlington.

What drove them away was the dueling bullsh1t between the planning dept, and the building dept. The previous owner literally went bankrupt because one entity wanted a retaining wall directly where the septic system was. they were moving things on an approved set of plans.

Ol' Boy eventually just went titsup and gave it back to the bank. Just an elaborate, multistory foundation. The bank damn near would give it to you just to get away from the eminent SWPPS fines and lawsuits.

I think the whole abortion is still there, nobody can touch it.

Brent.


----------



## conarb

I didn't know this guy because he was a freshman when I was a senior, but we both worked our way through college, he's a lot smarter than I and stayed and became a builder/developer in Palo Alto, he just gave the university $151 million after lots of other major gifts, at the same time Palo Alto is fighting him trying to develop land:



			
				Contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> PALO ALTO  -- Stanford University has received a jaw-dropping $151 million  donation, its largest gift ever from a single living person, the  university announced Monday.
> 
> It is not the first philanthropic  record made by the Silicon Valley real estate developer John Arrillaga  Sr., who attended Stanford on a basketball scholarship and graduated in  1960. Arrillaga gave the university $100 million in 2006 -- then the  largest donation of its kind -- and his family's name appears on  buildings all over campus: Arrillaga Family Sports Center, the Arrillaga  Center for Sports and Recreation, the Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni  Center and the Arrillaga Family Dining Commons.
> 
> Arrillaga's daughter reflected  on her father's humble beginnings and life as a Stanford  student-athlete in a piece posted on the university's website. Her  father washed dishes, delivered mail and did gardening to cover his  living expenses while he was an undergraduate, wrote Laura  Arrillaga-Andreessen, a public policy and philanthropy lecturer at  Stanford. ¹





			
				Mercury News said:
			
		

> Council members cited  several concerns about Arrillaga's plan, ranging from the seemingly  secretive process that was used to develop it to the sheer size of the  proposed buildings."This is an ambitious community but the  current proposal is over-ambitious and the process has been somewhat  upside down," Council Member Karen Holman said. "I am confident that Mr.  Arrillaga, going forward, will want to stay attuned to what's going on  and will want to build something complimentary to his legacy and  complimentary to Palo Alto."
> 
> Arrillaga's plan has undergone  revisions since its public introduction in September, but the four  office towers and theater would still exceed the city's 50-foot height  restriction on new development. Including mechanical equipment, two of  the buildings would top 114 feet.
> 
> Located on 4.3 acres of mostly  Stanford-owned land bounded by University Avenue, the downtown Caltrain  station, El Camino Park and El Camino Real, the project also calls for a  rebuild of the Intermodal Transit Center as well as improved bicycle  and pedestrian connections. ²


Average permit time here is 7 years, during that time you have to fight a bunch of city employees who couldn't make a million dollars if their lives depended upon it, but they think they know better than we do.   Palo Alto is terrible, they have even outlawed copper gutters and drain pipes because they can harm the ****ing fish.

I was fighting a  County plan checker, an SE, as she challenged everything my SE did, at one point she as much as told me that she didn't have time for my few million dollar house as she was working on the Bing Concert Hall.  I told her that Peter Bing was a classmate of mine, she asked how he made all of his money?  I told her he didn't make the money, he was only a public health doctor, his *father and uncle* came over from Hungary penniless Jews after the First World War, they built all kinds of large Cooperative Apartments in New York City, and in those days there were no building permits and very little in the way of structural engineering, and those buildings are still standing.  Her comment: "Well they don't have earthquakes in New York city so building permits aren't necessary."

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_23578960/stanfords-record-gift-151-million?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com

² http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22125839/palo-alto-council-seeks-alternate-plans-arrillaga-project


----------



## MASSDRIVER

I think the trick is to build a stadium or arena.

I'll bet there's a pemit waiting for you right now on the counter. We can work out the details later. Just look at Sacramento.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler

And Jeff some still question why ICC threw their hands up. ......


----------



## jar546

How did this turn into a California fee issue when I started a thread about a plumbing code violation?  I just love how people make mountains out of mole-hills and detract from the simplistic issues with over-the-top extremist examples that have nothing to do with the actual issue at hand.



> The words “extreme” and “extremism” are often used to convey two very different meanings. Unfortunately many people do not seem to be aware of this and therefore confuse the meanings themselves. These are:Being on one side of an issue and refusing to consider reasonable counterarguments to that position.
> 
> Deviating too much from society’s norms.
> 
> It is important to note that while 1 is irrational behavior, there is no inherent problem with 2.
> 
> What is our most reasonable remedy for upholding the pluralistic values of constitutional democracy? The most enduring remedy is closely related to the fact that a majority of democratic citizens are not themselves extremists. The most reliable surveys and scholarly studies consistently find a far more pluralistic and open-minded electorate than the public catered to by extremist rhetoric on cable TV and talk radio and among many political elites.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

How did it turn from a California fee issue into a quoted tirade on extremism?

Because it's a thread. A string of thoughts woven together.

Usually during conversation the subject wanders as the participants either find common ground or argue a dispute.

The OP is a horse that can be beaten to death only so much, so thoughts move around.

Besides, I gave you guys the correct answer way back. No need to discuss it further, really.  

Brent.


----------



## Pcinspector1

"A diversion tactic!"

Jar, "Are there any posting rules you can't drink a bottle of scotch before you post?

Post #94, avatar picture of what a real electrician looks like?  

pc1


----------



## mtlogcabin

jar546 said:
			
		

> Unlike the other I-Codes, the IPC has a little known sentence at the end of 102.3 that says:


[A] 102.3 Maintenance.

All plumbing systems, materials and appurtenances, both existing and new, and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in proper operating condition in accordance with the original design in a safe and sanitary condition. All devices or safeguards required by this code shall be maintained in compliance with the code edition under which they were installed.

The owner or the owner’s designated agent shall be responsible for maintenance of plumbing systems. To determine compliance with this provision, the code official shall have the authority to require any plumbing system to be reinspected.

PLUMBING SYSTEM. Includes the water supply and distribution pipes; plumbing fixtures and traps; water-treating or water-using equipment; soil, waste and vent pipes; and sanitary and storm sewers and building drains; in addition to their respective connections, devices and appurtenances within a structure or premises.

The definition of a "plumbing system" is very specific and I do not see where it includes unrestricted access by the public to a toilet room


----------



## steveray

Fixture count is driven by occupant load, occupant load includes customers (public)....You let them sit, you let them....you know....


----------



## Mech

Jeff,

Have you done anything yet?


----------



## Pcinspector1

So... if the vanity sinks wing handle is missing, IPC 102.3 kicks in.

"Never fear SUPER BO appears and saves the day!"

When's lunch?

pc1


----------



## ICE

jar546 said:
			
		

> 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?


It seems odd that you would host a forum for such a bunch of losers.


----------



## BSSTG

jar546 said:
			
		

> So part of the reason for excessive litigation is the lack of enforcement by code officials who refuse to perform their job as outlined in the administration sections of the applicable codes?


I pick my fights carefully. That is one I'm not taking on, not in the environment I work in.

BS


----------



## jar546

When you are a municipal employee that has decent protection from lawsuits, it is easier to "fail to act" than it is to "act" because it lessens your chance of litigation?  Would you simply just let the magistrate make the decision if they are cited by you?  You would rather not risk losing a case than actually trying and letting the system do its job?


----------



## jar546

Mech said:
			
		

> Jeff,Have you done anything yet?


I can't, not my jurisdiction which is a great reason to post this question.

This threads proves why we have so much litigation.  Failure to act.


----------



## JBI

I can't believe I read the whole thing...

Even worse, I can't believe some of what I read.

First and foremost is the issue of jurisdiction. It varies according to location. For many, like most NYS Code Officials, the authority to enforce includes both new construction and existing facility maintenance. For those whose job is limited to new construction then the OP is not within the scope of authority. Simple.

Second is the question of 'ADA' compliance. Few (very few) municipal Code Officials are charge with enforcement of the ADA. However most are charged with enforcing the accessibility provisions of the Codes.

Third the proper codes in the instant case are the Property Maintenance Code and to a lesser extent, the Fire Code. Generally, one cannot alter  building such that it becomes less code compliant. To do so is a violation of the Code. The EBC/Chapter 34 would apply once a permit is applied for.

Fourth there is a duty to inspect in response to a bona fide complaint, that is a complaint that is within the authority and jurisdiction of the Department, that alleges a violation of the Code.

Yes, it is a violation. Yes the municipality has a duty t inspect and gain compliance, preferably voluntary compliance. Lacking that, appropriate enforcement actions to compel compliance are warranted.

Written complaints establish a paper trail that will likely force the jurisdiction to act. JMHO


----------



## jar546

JBI said:
			
		

> I can't believe I read the whole thing... Even worse, I can't believe some of what I read.
> 
> First and foremost is the issue of jurisdiction. It varies according to location. For many, like most NYS Code Officials, the authority to enforce includes both new construction and existing facility maintenance. For those whose job is limited to new construction then the OP is not within the scope of authority. Simple.
> 
> Second is the question of 'ADA' compliance. Few (very few) municipal Code Officials are charge with enforcement of the ADA. However most are charged with enforcing the accessibility provisions of the Codes.
> 
> Third the proper codes in the instant case are the Property Maintenance Code and to a lesser extent, the Fire Code. Generally, one cannot alter  building such that it becomes less code compliant. To do so is a violation of the Code. The EBC/Chapter 34 would apply once a permit is applied for.
> 
> Fourth there is a duty to inspect in response to a bona fide complaint, that is a complaint that is within the authority and jurisdiction of the Department, that alleges a violation of the Code.
> 
> Yes, it is a violation. Yes the municipality has a duty t inspect and gain compliance, preferably voluntary compliance. Lacking that, appropriate enforcement actions to compel compliance are warranted.
> 
> Written complaints establish a paper trail that will likely force the jurisdiction to act. JMHO


The voice of reason. Thank you JBI


----------



## steveray

2902.3 Required public toilet facilities. Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization.


----------



## mtlogcabin

steveray said:
			
		

> 2902.3 Required public toilet facilities. Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization.


And when you read further

[P] 2902.3.5  Door locking.

Where a toilet room is provided for the use of multiple occupants, the egress door for the room shall not be lockable from the inside of the room. This section does not apply to family or assisted-use toilet rooms.

Unless it is more than a single user toilet room the lock is not the code violation. Refusing to provide use of the accessible toilet room to a person who needs it is a definite civil rights violation. Both restrooms where marked unisex and unless there was an extremely long wait or somebody had an "emergency" that could not wait and the management refused to allow access to the locked toilet room then there may be a violation for failure to provide the minimum required fixtures under Table 2902.1.

The OP did not state there was a complaint of refusal to allow a customer to use the locked toilet room. The only way a code official could even act is if he had complaint or knowledge the management refused a customer use of the room. Sending letters and citing code sections with no proof or complaint the management refused use of the room simply because the sign says employees only  is not a good way to run an enforcement department of any kind.

That would be similar to a police officer giving me a speeding ticket because my speedometer says my old truck can do 90 MPH. He has no proof that I have ever driven that fast


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Kind of my point.

The only thing you can do is inform him of statute. There is virtually no way to prove the violation. Even if there were a complaint it was locked, he could just claim occupancy. If you recieved a dozen complaints, he could say it was occupied every time. I guess you could be weird about it and post guard to watch the place, or task an Obamadrone to it, but now your getting a little obsessive.

Brent.


----------



## Rick18071

At a gas staition that I did all the inspections and C.O.ed stooped to gas up a week after it opened and tryed to use the restroom. It was locked. I asked for the attenent for a key. He said no rest room. I insisted that there was one. He opened it up and it was full of boxes.

I can't do anything about it.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> At a gas staition that I did all the inspections and C.O.ed stooped to gas up a week after it opened and tryed to use the restroom. It was locked. I asked for the attenent for a key. He said no rest room. I insisted that there was one. He opened it up and it was full of boxes.I can't do anything about it.


Yes you can since you have personal knowledge the restroom was not available for public use when requested. Maybe it was just a case of lack of storage for the excess product that was anticipated being need for the initial opening. Check again in a couple of weeks  and follow the code path if they are not willing to comply with your verbal request/notification


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Code Official’s Role in Accessibility http://bsj.iccsafe.org/october/features/code_officials_role.html


----------



## Mr Softy

1.  investigate the complaint and explain the code and its requirements - that 2 restrooms are required, including the accessible one - if that doesn't work...

2.  cite them under our building and access code, and probably the plumbing code - if that doesn't work...

3.  threaten their common vics license - if it's still locked...

4.  go to court to get compliance

disclaimer - i have only looked at page 1 of the thread

disclaimer - i've only read the looked at page 1


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Code Official’s Role in Accessibility http://bsj.iccsafe.org/october/features/code_officials_role.html


Unless I missed something, referencing only that article, the code official has no real authority to do anything as it relates to federal law.

But he may advise.

Brent


----------



## conarb

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Unless I missed something, referencing only that article, the code official has no real authority to do anything as it relates to federal law. But he may advise.
> 
> Brent


I suspect you are right Brent, except for us here in the Communist State of California that now has it's own disability code.  I've challenged a couple of these guys in other states before and have never received a clear answer as to their authority.


----------



## mark handler

Mr Softy said:
			
		

> 1.  investigate the complaint and explain the code and its requirements - that 2 restrooms are required, including the accessible one - if that doesn't work...2.  cite them under our building and access code, and probably the plumbing code - if that doesn't work...
> 
> 3.  threaten their common vics license - if it's still locked...
> 
> 4.  go to court to get compliance


The right answer


----------



## jar546

UPDATE / MORE INFO:

The reality of this situation is this.  Every Wednesday I have a meeting in a city that I have no jurisdiction.  Every Wednesday I stop in this place for a protein smoothie for breakfast, probably 44-48 weeks per year. I noticed this problem but kept quiet.  Then:

One day I spoke to one of the employees and told her to tell her boss (as the nobody that I am) that 2 bathrooms were required for the occupant load and if he was going to feel the need to eliminate one of them for the employees, he should not be locking out the only ADA bathroom there.

Three weeks later (today) I stopped in and the boss was there and nothing has changed.  No one else was there so I told him that he is setting himself up for litigation by locking out the ADA.  I reminded him that 2 bathrooms were required and that was bad enough but he was locking out the ADA making things even worse.  I explained to him the code requirements and about growing litigation on the ADA end and was very nice to him.  He had no response.  My suspicion is that next week, nothing will be changed.

If nothing is changed next week, then, after my meeting I will be going across the street to the City to file a written complaint and see what their position is.  I plan on being proactive with this and want to see how the system will handle this.

We will see.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

That seems appropriate.

A little whiney, but appropriate.  

Brent.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

jar546 said:
			
		

> I explained to him the code requirements and about growing litigation on the ADA end and was very nice to him. He had no response.


That's the kind of response we received majority of the time. I'm usually met with stares that could put fear in the eyes of Hellboy.

A visit from IRC prompts direct compliance without getting the courts involved. The owner or representatives call our office for confirmation and advice on alternatives. Vandalism is often the reason.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Good for you Jar!

Just remember your taking about $30,000 dollars from a potential victims lawsuit. "There's gold in them hills in California."


----------



## Mech

JAR - anything happen this past Wednesday?


----------

