# Is lavatory required to be in same room as water closet?



## braxtoncox (May 8, 2015)

We are designing a 5,376 SF equipment maintenance building in Soldotna, AK. We have one water closet in the building and it is in a room by itself. We have a utility sink located just outside of the water closet room. Do we need to provide a lavatory in the same room as the water closet or are we okay with the utility sink located just outside of the water closet room? We can't seem to find a specific statement about this issue in the 2009 IBC or the UPC.


----------



## mark handler (May 9, 2015)

Welcome to the site

There is no requirement in the UPC or the IBC for the sink to be in the same room with the toilet

Is the "utility sink" accessible? Does it meet the accessiblity codes?


----------



## north star (May 9, 2015)

*& ~ ~ &*



braxtoncox,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum !    

*& ~ ~ &*


----------



## fatboy (May 9, 2015)

Welcome braxtoncox, I agree with Mark, no requirement.


----------



## ICE (May 9, 2015)

Just put a paper towel dispenser next to the door and you're good to go.


----------



## jar546 (May 9, 2015)

Nope, not required.


----------



## mark handler (May 9, 2015)

But, does it meet the accessiblity codes?


----------



## braxtoncox (May 10, 2015)

The utility sink is not accessible.

The building is part of a "campus" of buildings at the local landfill. The new building is a maintenance building for the heavy equipment and will not be open to the public. When employees arrive at the landfill, they clock-in at the main building which contains accessible restroom facilities. From that point they utilize company vehicles to go to various places within the landfill. For their morning and afternoon breaks and for their lunch breaks, all employees return to the main building that contains the accessible facilities. The new maintenance building will only be occupied by two employees. All employees that will be performing maintenance on the equipment will have to be able bodied individuals. We actually applied for a waiver to omit any restroom facilities in the new building, but it was rejected.

Are we still required to provide an accessible restroom in the building? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this one, as we have waivered back and forth on this issue.


----------



## braxtoncox (May 10, 2015)

north star said:
			
		

> *& ~ ~ &*
> 
> braxtoncox,
> 
> ...


Thank you. I have read a lot of other posts on this forum, but I have yet to post my own question.


----------



## mark handler (May 10, 2015)

Are You saing to the disabled employees they must travel to another building to wash their hands?


----------



## braxtoncox (May 10, 2015)

Most of the employees at the facility are heavy equipment operators. They spend most of their day operating equipment and they have to return to the main building to use the restroom facilities. The owner would like to treat the employees working in the new building in the same manner. The owner would like to require the employees working in the new building to return to the main building, in their company vehicles, every time they need to use the restroom facilities. The new building is about 1,000 feet from the main building by road.

The owner wanted to omit the restroom facility from the new building entirely, but our variance request was rejected by the plumbing inspector. Since we are required to provide a restroom in the building, do you feel that we are required to make that restroom accessible?


----------



## fatboy (May 10, 2015)

If a restroom is required, then it must be accessible.........


----------



## mark handler (May 11, 2015)

braxtoncox said:
			
		

> Most of the employees at the facility are heavy equipment operators. They spend most of their day operating equipment and they have to return to the main building to use the restroom facilities. The owner would like to treat the employees working in the new building in the same manner. The owner would like to require the employees working in the new building to return to the main building, in their company vehicles, every time they need to use the restroom facilities. The new building is about 1,000 feet from the main building by road.The owner wanted to omit the restroom facility from the new building entirely, but our variance request was rejected by the plumbing inspector. Since we are required to provide a restroom in the building, do you feel that we are required to make that restroom accessible?


Code requires it. Not what I feal, Not what I want, Build to code.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 11, 2015)

> Are You saing to the disabled employees they must travel to another building to wash their hands?


He is saying someone with a severe enough disability that requires a wheelchair for mobility will not be able to perform the required job functions therefore there is no need to provide the toe and knee clearances under the sink in this specific building.

I would agree. Sometimes logic and code are at odds with each other. It is the local AHJ's call.

As one attorney advised me on making decisions. Who will benefit, who will be harmed, who may likely sue.

the benefit is to the owner not having to put in a sink

No one will be harmed since a person in a wheel chair cannot perform the job functions and the building has limited access for employees only

nobody will probably ever sue.


----------



## georgia plans exam (May 11, 2015)

Would Section 405.3.2 of the 2012 IPC, requiring the required lavatory to be located in the same room as the required water closet for employee and public toilet rooms, apply?     GPE


----------



## mark handler (May 11, 2015)

georgia plans exam said:
			
		

> Would Section 405.3.2 of the 2012 IPC, requiring the required lavatory to be located in the same room as the required water closet for employee and public toilet rooms, apply?     GPE


Yes BUT. That section is not in the *2009*  Code; Per the Original post


----------



## georgia plans exam (May 11, 2015)

10-4. Thanks.     GPE


----------



## mark handler (May 11, 2015)

That is a case-in-point why year and code is important


----------



## retire09 (May 12, 2015)

Also, Alaska is on the UPC which does not have the requirement.


----------



## mark handler (May 12, 2015)

retire09 said:
			
		

> Also, Alaska is on the UPC which does not have the requirement.


Nor does California


----------

