# Dentist office addition



## Rick18071 (Oct 23, 2013)

A dentist wants to put  on addition, two new exam rooms. Using 2012 IBC 3411.5 can he use 3411.7 exception 4 to keep from spending money on an accessible route into the dentist office and to the restrooms?

I think he needs to spend 20%.  The office or restrooms are not accessible now. He is saying that he is building the addition to have accessible exam rooms. Also doing some minor alterations in the existing office.

3411.5 Additions. Provisions for new construction shall apply to additions. An addition that affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of, a primary function shall comply with the requirements in Section 3411.7.

3411.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function. Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking fountains serving the area of primary function.

Exceptions:

1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.

2. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to windows, hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets and signs.

3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.

4. This provision does not apply to alterations undertaken for the primary purpose of increasing the accessibility of an existing building, facility or element.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 23, 2013)

Interesting situation due to exception #4.  I wonder what L&I would do.


----------



## ICE (Oct 23, 2013)

The primary purpose of the addition is examination rooms.  That would require accessibility.  Exception 4 is talking about an alteration undertaken to increase accessibility such as a ramp.


----------



## JPohling (Oct 23, 2013)

20% minimum towards accessibility until the threshold and then 100% compliance.  cannot dodge responsibility.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 23, 2013)

Sounds to me that he needs an accessible route first. If the cost exceeds 20% of the construction then maybe he has a case.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 23, 2013)

Ice, they are telling me the primary purpose is to have some accessible exam rooms because the exisiting building has none and no room to make the existing exam rooms accessible.


----------



## Fort (Oct 23, 2013)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> Ice, they are telling me the primary purpose is to have some accessible exam rooms because the exisiting building has none and no room to make the existing exam rooms accessible.


That is a good story.

Really they just want to add exam rooms so they can serve more patient$.

If they were remodeling to make the existing ones accessible, then Ex 4 would apply.

But by adding entirely new exam rooms I would not accept it. Got to do the accessible route.

They may also be well served to be advised to review their responsibilities under ADA to make all improvements that are "readily achievable."


----------



## jar546 (Oct 23, 2013)

Now that I think about it, #4 does not apply because they are adding to the building and not just renovating existing space.  The new exam rooms would have to be compliant under today's standards and the 20% of that cost would have to go towards the accessible route.

ADDition

Adding


----------



## RJJ (Oct 23, 2013)

Jeff I agree! If the accessible route was to exceed or be not feasible then the 20% would need to used on that first. New Construction is new construction.


----------



## steveray (Oct 23, 2013)

20%.......I say......


----------



## rnapier (Oct 23, 2013)

Additions are not alterations.

Def

ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair or addition.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 23, 2013)

Rick,  you said *" The office or restrooms are not accessible now."  *You tell that cheapskate torcher chamber operator that he cannot do anything to the building until he adds ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS.  I just spent $2,000 on a lower denture and reline of my upper; and the cost of extractions of four lousy teeth is going to cost me over $2,500.  You should be looking at ways to shut that place down for not complying with accessibility requirements.  Yours gently, Uncle Bob


----------



## jar546 (Oct 23, 2013)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Rick,  you said *" The office or restrooms are not accessible now."  *You tell that cheapskate torcher chamber operator that he cannot do anything to the building until he adds ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS.  I just spent $2,000 on a lower denture and reline of my upper; and the cost of extractions of four lousy teeth is going to cost me over $2,500.  You should be looking at ways to shut that place down for not complying with accessibility requirements.  Yours gently, Uncle Bob


UB, are you saying that he needs to comply with accessibility?  :cowboy

Stop beating around the bush.     LOL


----------



## RJJ (Oct 23, 2013)

I like dentist when they need a code review and approval! I tell them they just entered the painless code review process!   Then I get out the rocky mountain oysters pliers and start to twist a new one!


----------



## Msradell (Oct 24, 2013)

Aren't we overlooking something obvious?  If the purpose of the new exam rooms is to have accessible rooms for patients that need them he's going to have to create an accessible route for the patients to enter them!  Of course now we can begin the discussion about accessible bathroom(s).


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 24, 2013)

Talked to someone with the PA state accessibility board today. I was told that where IBC  3411.7 says Alterations it does not mean additions too. So they need the 20%. This is what I thought but I wanted to be sure because I felt some pressure on this.

I also asked if all the expensive equipment that a dentist needs have to be part of the cost to figure the 20% from. I was told if it is fastened down it must be counted.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 24, 2013)

I would look at this slightly different. First, regardless of the addition they need to have an accessible route into and to the exam rooms. Next, within the addition of exam rooms they must be accessible as well. Last, if they have existing bath room or rooms they could create 1 accessible bath room.

Don't forget the tax credit allowed by the Fed for such work. If I am not wrong that is another 5K to be used as a credit for the addition/alteration.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 24, 2013)

But they have tpo go through the existing building to get to the new addition. So we use chapter 34 for accessiblity in existing buildings.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 24, 2013)

And the point is with chapter 34?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 25, 2013)

The Area of the new addition Shall be Accessible.

IN addition to the cost of the addition,20 percent of the cost the addition shall be spent on an accessible route to the addition and in making the restrooms accessible.

Spend you 20 percent in this order

1. An accessible entrance;

2. An accessible route to the altered area;

3. At least one accessible restroom for each sex;

4. Accessible telephones;

5. Accessible drinking fountains; and

6. When possible, additional accessible features, parking excreta.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 25, 2013)

Mark I agree with the method you listed. Without know the details of the project and obstructions to be corrected some on the list my already be ok and others not ok and needing a fix.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 25, 2013)

Why do CA archs get it and others don't? Fear of being sued?

Dentist makes how much a year? Imagine if he could/would accommodate disabled patients?


----------



## pwood (Oct 30, 2013)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Rick, you said *" The office or restrooms are not accessible now." *You tell that cheapskate torcher chamber operator that he cannot do anything to the building until he adds ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS. I just spent $2,000 on a lower denture and reline of my upper; and the cost of extractions of four lousy teeth is going to cost me over $2,500. You should be looking at ways to shut that place down for not complying with accessibility requirements. Yours gently, Uncle Bob


 I feel you UB. I had my teeth cleaned the other day. $112 for 20 minutes work. Make the pain producing practioneers pay.


----------



## pwood (Oct 30, 2013)

pwood said:
			
		

> I feel you UB. I had my teeth cleaned the other day. $112 for 20 minutes work. Make the pain producing practioneers pay.


 i meant to say "practitioneers "


----------



## mark handler (Oct 30, 2013)

This Business, and the addition must comply with the ADA. I know you guys do not enforce it, but You should not mislead the dentist.

Businesses that provide goods or services to the public are called "public accommodations" in the ADA. The ADA establishes requirements for 12 categories of public accommodations, which include stores, restaurants, bars, service establishments, theaters, hotels, recreational facilities, private museums and schools, *doctors' and dentists' offices, *shopping malls, and other businesses. Nearly all types of businesses that serve the public are included in the 12 categories, regardless of the size of the business or the age of their buildings. Businesses covered by the ADA are required to modify their business policies and procedures when necessary to serve customers with disabilities and take steps to communicate effectively with customers with disabilities. The ADA also requires businesses to remove architectural barriers in existing buildings and make sure that newly built or altered facilities are constructed to be accessible to individuals with disabilities. "Grandfather provisions" often found in local building codes do not exempt businesses from their obligations under the ADA.

The reason we have so many lawsuits is we, code officials, do not clearly inform the business owners, we try to find a way around accessibility


----------



## jar546 (Oct 30, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> This Business, and the addition must comply with the ADA. I know you guys do not enforce it, but You should not mislead the dentist.Businesses that provide goods or services to the public are called "public accommodations" in the ADA. The ADA establishes requirements for 12 categories of public accommodations, which include stores, restaurants, bars, service establishments, theaters, hotels, recreational facilities, private museums and schools, *doctors' and dentists' offices, *shopping malls, and other businesses. Nearly all types of businesses that serve the public are included in the 12 categories, regardless of the size of the business or the age of their buildings. Businesses covered by the ADA are required to modify their business policies and procedures when necessary to serve customers with disabilities and take steps to communicate effectively with customers with disabilities. The ADA also requires businesses to remove architectural barriers in existing buildings and make sure that newly built or altered facilities are constructed to be accessible to individuals with disabilities. "Grandfather provisions" often found in local building codes do not exempt businesses from their obligations under the ADA.
> 
> The reason we have so many lawsuits is *we, code officials, do not clearly inform the business owners, we try to find a way around accessibility*


I have seen that first hand and can attest that to be a problem, at least where I do code officiating.

To complicate thing, the OP is in Pennsylvania which is the land of unhappy people who call on public officials to intervene when us nasty code officials ask them to comply with state and federal rules.  This is and has been a pathetic mess.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 30, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I have seen that first hand and can attest that to be a problem, at least where I do code officiating.  To complicate thing, the OP is in Pennsylvania which is the land of unhappy people who call on public officials to intervene when us nasty code officials ask them to comply with state and federal rules.  This is and has been a pathetic mess.


You are so right!


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Oct 31, 2013)

" To complicate thing, the OP is in Pennsylvania which is the land of unhappy people who call on public officials to intervene when us nasty code officials ask them to comply with state and federal rules. This is and has been a pathetic mess."

That's why this crappy unconstitutional artificial discrimination construed abortion should be recinded in whole and applied as code enforcement by the states.

Brent


----------

