# ADA commentary



## Mark Sigler (Nov 19, 2019)

I realize that the commentary portions of the codes we enforce are not code, however they do provide support and a rational for the code sections.  In this particular case I have a project that is a new Fire Station with sleeping quarters for emergency response personnel.  They are asking to omit the grab bars and shower seats within the crew quarters but to put the reinforcement in the walls so as to permit their installation at a later date as needed.  Again IBC Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1 are not the ADA in its' entirety, I realize this, but what are the opinions out there regarding allowing this?

The following excerpt is the point of discussion and taken from the commentary to 28 CFR 35.151 Title II regulation.

"_The comments about the application of transient lodging or residential standards to social service center establishments, and housing at a place of education are addressed separately below. The Department
received one additional comment on this issue from an organization representing emergency response personnel seeking an exemption from the transient lodging accessibility requirements for crew quarters
and common use areas serving those crew quarters (e.g., locker rooms, exercise rooms, day room) that are used exclusively by on-duty emergency response personnel and that are not used for any public purpose. The commenter argued that since emergency response personnel must meet certain physical qualifications that have the effect of exempting persons with mobility disabilities, there is no need to build crew quarters and common use areas serving those crew quarters to meet the 2004 ADAAG. In addition, the commenter 

argued that applying the transient lodging standards would impose significant costs and create living space that is less usable for most emergency response personnel.

The ADA does not exempt spaces because of a belief or policy that excludes persons with disabilities from certain work. However, the Department believes that crew quarters that are used exclusively as a residence by emergency response personnel and the kitchens and bathrooms exclusively serving those quarters are more like residential dwelling units and are therefore covered by the residential dwelling standards in the 2010 Standards, not the transient lodging standards.  

The residential dwelling standards address most of the concerns of the commenter. For example, the commenter was concerned that sinks in kitchens and lavatories in bathrooms that are accessible under the transient lodging standards would be too low to be comfortably used by emergency response personnel. The residential dwelling standards allow such features to be adaptable so that they would not have to be lowered until accessibility was needed.  Similarly, grab bars and shower seats would not have to be installed at the time of construction provided that reinforcement has been installed in walls and located so as to permit their installation at a later date."_

All constructive comment welcomed.

Thank you,
Sigs


----------



## e hilton (Nov 19, 2019)

Makes sense.  As a compromise, why not create one accessible restroom with accessible shower.


----------



## classicT (Nov 19, 2019)

Only speaking from an IBC/A117.1 perspective here....

I'd put forth that a dwelling area of a fire station is an R-2 occupancy. Given that, I'd follow Section 1107.6.2.3 (below) and require one accessible unit (for up to 25 dwelling units) and that the balance be Type B units (if more than 4 total).

The Type B units would need to comply with A117.1 Section 1004. This would permit the installation of more typical type amenities and fixtures, while allowing for possible future conversion and enhancements if necessitated.

This approach nets a response very similar to that of the quote in the OP.



*1107.6.2.3 Group R-2 Other Than Live/Work Units, Apartment Houses, Monasteries and Convents*
In Group R-2 occupancies, other than _live/work units_, apartment houses, monasteries and convents falling within the scope of Sections 1107.6.2.1 and 1107.6.2.2, _accessible units _and _Type B units _shall be provided in accordance with Sections 1107.6.2.2.1 and 1107.6.2.2.2. Bedrooms within congregate living facilities shall be counted as _sleeping units _for the purpose of determining the number of units. Where the _sleeping units _are grouped into suites, only one _sleeping unit _in each suite shall be permitted to count towards the number of required _accessible units_. Accessible units shall be dispersed among the various classes of units, as described in Section 1107.6.

*1107.6.2.3.1 Accessible Units*
_Accessible dwelling units _and _sleeping unit_s shall be provided in accordance with Table 1107.6.1.1.

*1107.6.2.3.2 Type B Units*
Where there are four or more _dwelling units _or _sleeping unit_s _intended to be occupied as a residence _in a single structure, every _dwelling unit _and every _sleeping unit intended to be occupied as a residence _shall be a _Type B unit_.
*Exception: *The number of _Type B units _is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.

​*1107.6.1.1 Accessible Units*
_Accessible dwelling units _and _sleeping units _shall be provided in accordance with Table 1107.6.1.1. Where buildings contain more than 50 _dwelling units _or _sleeping units_, the number of _Accessible units _shall be determined per building. Where buildings contain 50 or fewer _dwelling units _or _sleeping units_, all _dwelling units _and _sleeping units _on a _site _shall be considered to determine the total number of _Accessible units_. _Accessible units _shall be dispersed among the various classes of units.

*TABLE 1107.6.1.1 ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS*



(table paraphrased)​


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 19, 2019)

"Not" a residence, a place of business, a T-II vs T-III


----------



## e hilton (Nov 19, 2019)

The dorm area is closer to a residence than a place of business.  Business implies doing work, producing something.


----------



## north star (Nov 20, 2019)

*& ~ & ~ &*

Mark Sigler,

I had this very scenario in a former employment position.
The Fire Chief and I went round and round about ADA
compliance in Crew Quarters \ Restroom areas........He
agreed to having the grab bars installed in the required
ADA toilet stalls, but refused the Shower requirement.
His reasoning was that the Crew Quarter Showers
were for "able bodied personnel ONLY".........He made
the statement that if a lawsuit ever came up, that he
was O.K. with having the "people in the black robes to
decide".

I believe there is legal precendence & justification to
having ONLY "able bodied personnel" using the Showers.
Much like the exemption that "able bodied military personnel"
get..........We never did install grab bars in the Crew Showers !

*& ~ & ~ &*


----------



## khsmith55 (Nov 20, 2019)

Tread lightly, the Access Board has issued over a half dozen interpretations specifically addressing Fire Stations. The jest of ALL the interpretations is that the station and sleeping quarters MUST meet the ADA. The “abled bodied” argument has been floating around for decades (with no basis), an example might be the live-in Fire Chief is partially (hopefully not permanently) disabled on the job, what then, your no longer “able bodied”, too bad, move out. Extreme, but you can see the big FLAW in the bogus “able-bodied” argument.

Just my thoughts,

Ken


----------



## TheCommish (Nov 20, 2019)

Why do  people put some much time and effort into trying to avoid a code requirement? I can see not putting numerous accessible showers in. How many showers are we talking about, maybe 5, and to have 2 with grab bars and seats in, for the cost of the in the total project  this expense is minor.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 20, 2019)

And a fire fighter never gets banged up a little while performing their duties that might want or need a shower before seeking medical treatment.


----------



## e hilton (Nov 20, 2019)

TheCommish said:


> Why do  people put some much time and effort into trying to avoid a code requirement?


The codes are well intentioned, but they assume the owner has unlimited funds and is willing to give up operational space to use for infrastructure.  In this case, give up dorm space to accomodate large restrooms and shower facilities.  Or have a small building footprint to allow for wide parking spaces, ramps, setbacks etc.  Owners try to maximize the building size and minimize unusable space on a lot, and many times the various codes and requirements fight against that.  

But ... some times the plan approvers don’t consider real life situations.  In my town a developer built a strip center on a Narrow piece of property, and marketed the space to fast food restaurants.  So now we have about 8 or 10 restaurants who naturally all have peak periods at the same time.  Apparently the plan reviewers had blinders on and didn’t consider how many cars would try to park there at the same time.  There are 1 or 2 non-food businesses and they really struggle to have parking spaces for their customers.


----------



## classicT (Nov 20, 2019)

And what is to say that it will always be a fire station. Could transition into another use without a change of occupancy. Able bodied fire fighters may no longer be the intended residents.


----------



## Mark Sigler (Nov 20, 2019)

Thank you to all for the thoughtful responses. I don't disagree that the code does require the features to be installed and that they are a minor expense in the overall cost of the project.

Ken-
I am interested in your comments about the determinations by the access board regarding fire stations.  Any chance you can direct me to links regarding these determinations?  I searched a bit and have been unsuccessful so far.  I think I'm just not familiar with their site to find the right spot to search or maybe it's a wording issue with my search.  Their site is massive.

Thank you,
Sigs


----------



## khsmith55 (Nov 20, 2019)

Sigs, it been years since I found them, but if my memory serves me I went to the “ADA” homepage and that’s where I found them. Update, google “ADA Interpretations”, I found this link (https://www.justice.gov/crt/americans-disabilities-act-technical-assistance-letters-41)with some cases, I’m sure there are multiple Fire Station cases. Hope this helps.

Ken


----------



## Mark Sigler (Nov 20, 2019)

Ken-

Thank you again for your efforts.  The link is broken for me but at least you gave me a starting point.

Thank you,
Sigs


----------



## Builder Bob (Nov 20, 2019)

Look under DOJ for fire stations.


----------



## khsmith55 (Nov 20, 2019)

Sorry Sigs, had to "separate" the link. Try this.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/americans-disabilities-act-technical-assistance-letters-41


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 22, 2019)

e hilton said:


> The codes are well intentioned, but they assume the owner has unlimited funds and is willing to give up operational space to use for infrastructure.  In this case, give up dorm space to accomodate large restrooms and shower facilities.  Or have a small building footprint to allow for wide parking spaces, ramps, setbacks etc.  Owners try to maximize the building size and minimize unusable space on a lot, and many times the various codes and requirements fight against that.
> 
> But ... some times the plan approvers don’t consider real life situations.  In my town a developer built a strip center on a Narrow piece of property, and marketed the space to fast food restaurants.  So now we have about 8 or 10 restaurants who naturally all have peak periods at the same time.  Apparently the plan reviewers had blinders on and didn’t consider how many cars would try to park there at the same time.  There are 1 or 2 non-food businesses and they really struggle to have parking spaces for their customers.



A "zoning" issue, not a code issue. Many corners (formerly gas stations) were spld to strip developers and the same thing happened. Unintended consequence or forseeable or just allowable due to lack of oversight?


----------



## Yikes (Nov 22, 2019)

khsmith55 said:


> Sorry Sigs, had to "separate" the link. Try this.
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/crt/americans-disabilities-act-technical-assistance-letters-41



Going to that page and doing a browser search with the word "fire", it seems the general interpretations are:
1.  Fire stations are government facilities that are subject to Title II of ADA.
2.  To the extent that existing fire stations provide PROGRAMS to the public ("visit our firehouse today!"), those programs must be made ADA accessible, now.  That may, or may not, require physical changes to the areas accessed by the public in order for persons with disabilities to participate in the program.
3.  For existing firehouses that do not have any programs accessible to the public, ADA does not - in itself - compel physical changes for the firefighting personnel, however:
4.  If the fire station is new construction, or if an existing fire station has an addition, alteration or remodel, then as a government facility it will be subject to the ADAS requirements for new construction or for additions, alterations or remodel, respectively.  Thus, a new or remodeled shower would require accessible features such as grab bars.  See https://www.justice.gov/crt/foia/readingroom/frequent_requests/ada_tal/tal194.txt
5.  Note that ADA Title I for employment discrimination is a separate issue, and "reasonable accommodation" of an employee with a disability may supersede the comment in #3 above.

Our local fire station was originally built years ago, when all the firefighters were male.  It was recently remodeled to provide a single accommodation shower/toilet because the department has hired a female firefighter, and that new restroom and shower had to be made fully accessible (grab bars, seat, etc.), along with path-of-travel, etc.

It is worth noting that the showers at the fire station are not exclusively for the use of people who are sleeping at the station.  A firefighter on a non-overnight shift can take a shower after responding to a fire, then leave when their shift is over.  Thus the shower is not purely a "residential dwelling unit shower".


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 22, 2019)

All "great" points, not all firefighters and staff are necessarily physically endowed or need to be, many in-station (overnight) positions can be filled by those less able bodied. Also note that there are still many volunteer firehouses.


----------



## Yikes (Nov 22, 2019)

If the firefighters somehow find the presence of a grab bar offensive to their own sense of physical prowess, just tell the firefighters it is a "washcloth rack"... or tell them it is for barre exercise.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 23, 2019)

We have had conversation before on Fire and Police Stations

https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/fire-stations-and-ada.5967/


----------

