# IEBC & ADA conflict? : being forced to add a handicap ramp to an already accessible building



## Tim Mailloux (Oct 27, 2020)

A friend asked me to look at a project he is working on, a renovation to a local town hall where the local official has told the design team they need to add a handicap accessible ramp to the front of the building. When pressed why, all the AHJ will cite is ADA title II. I was asked to see if there is anything in the building code (IEBC) & ADA that would mandate this ramp and I’m hitting a road block.

The building is (3) stories with an existing elevator and built into a sloping site. The basement level exits on grade to the rear of the building where the parking lot and handicap parking are located, while one of the first floor exits is to the front of the building. This first floor front entrance / exit has a monumental stone stair case and is not accessible. This is where the local AHJ has asked a new handicap ramp be added. The project scope consists of a small singe story addition to the basement level, MEP upgrades throughout, exterior repairs & scattered level 2 alternations throughout the existing (3) stories. With the extent of interior renovations I would probably classify it as a level 3 alteration, but that wouldn’t be relevant to this discussion.

As far as I can tell the existing town hall is fairly accessible in its existing state, and the interior renovations are only improving upon that. Going thru the IEBC, sections 705.1 exception #2 & 705.1.1 make it clear that the existing front entrance / exit is not required to be made accessible, and remember there is an existing accessible route from the parking lot at the rear of the building to the basement entrance & elevator lobby. But looking at the 2010 ADASAD, section 206.2.1 jumps out at me, and I think this is what the local AHJ is hanging his hat on as the front entrance exits to a sidewalk on a public street. I will add the town meeting room / council chamber is located on the first floor and I’m assuming that people do park on the street, or walk to the building and use the non-accessible front entrance to get into the building as it is so convenient.

*2010 ADASAD, 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points.* At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve.

*EXCEPTIONS:

1. *Where exceptions for alterations to qualified historic buildings or facilities are permitted by 202.5, no more than one accessible route from a site arrival point to an accessible entrance shall be required.

*2. *An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access.



So does this ADA requirement apply to a renovation to an existing public building even though the building code does not require it?


----------



## RLGA (Oct 27, 2020)

Access to a building is required not just from the accessible parking spaces, but also from public transportation stops. Does someone who rode the bus have an accessible route to the entrance near the parking lot? If they don't, the city is probably trying to provide access for people who do not drive, because the access through the parking lot entrance is _*not *_"the only means of access" to the building.


----------



## steveray (Oct 27, 2020)

705.1 General. A facility that is altered shall comply with the
applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
and Chapter 11 of the International Building Code unless it is
technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is
technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to
the maximum extent that is technically feasible.

705.2 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary
function. Where an alteration affects the accessibility to a, 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 and drinking
fountains serving the area of primary function.

Might be able to get there in 2 ways (under the building code) depending on scope....


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Oct 27, 2020)

steveray said:


> 705.1 General. A facility that is altered shall comply with the
> applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
> and Chapter 11 of the International Building Code unless it is
> technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is
> ...



_705.1 exception #2 - Accessible means of egress required by Chapter 10 of the International Building Code are not required to be provided in existing facilities._


If the ramp is removed from the scope, the front entrance is not being altered and does not need to be made accessible per the IEBC unless the alteration affects an area containing a primary function., which I guess it does.

_705.1.1Entrances - Where an alteration includes alterations to an entrance, and the facility has an accessible entrance on an accessible route, the altered entrance is not required to be accessible unless required by Section 705.2. Signs complying with Section 1110 of the International Building Code shall be provided._


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Oct 27, 2020)

RLGA said:


> Access to a building is required not just from the accessible parking spaces, but also from public transportation stops. Does someone who rode the bus have an accessible route to the entrance near the parking lot? If they don't, the city is probably trying to provide access for people who do not drive, because the access through the parking lot entrance is _*not *_"the only means of access" to the building.


for new construction I agree 100%, but for an existing renovation there has to be some compromise.


----------



## classicT (Oct 27, 2020)

Hang on.... Ron and Steve have you covered with code reasoning, but I have another point of view to add.

In the OP, you said...


Tim Mailloux said:


> a renovation to a local town hall where the local official has told the design team they need to add a handicap accessible ramp to the front of the building. When pressed why, all the AHJ will cite is ADA title II.


Is the AHJ the owner? Is it the building official who is making the requirement, or the owners representative?

If it is the owner, and they are just saying what they want, it is their dollar and you should have no issue letting them spend it.

If it is the building official, and the owner will gripe about the money, then you will need to follow the code sections put forth by Ron and Steve.

One aspect that I would remind you is that Town Halls are public buildings that are used outside of normal business hours. Staff may only be present core hours (8-5), but you will have periodic meetings at night (commission, council, etc. meetings, special events, etc.). If the rear door on the basement level is locked after normal business hours, then your accessible route is compromised. You will need to look into how the town hall is locked up at night to ensure that the route is available.


----------



## steveray (Oct 27, 2020)

Exception 2 covers MOE, not access/entrance....And then the 20% would kick in which applies to the entire route as new....Which would get accessible entrances per IBC1105


----------



## steveray (Oct 27, 2020)

And let me reiterate.....

705.1 General. *A facility that is altered shall comply* with the
applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
*and Chapter 11 of the International Building Code unless it is
technically infeasible.*


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 27, 2020)

Not a code issue, an ADA requirement that must be complied with, only exceptions for historic and topography.
Been on the books for 30 years! Code may not be less than ADA


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Oct 27, 2020)

steveray said:


> And let me reiterate.....
> 
> 705.1 General. *A facility that is altered shall comply* with the
> applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
> ...



Entrances are specifically covered by IEBC section 705.1.1, and the requirements of 705.1.1 superseded the chapter 11 of the IBC. The IEBC only required entrances to be upgrade if the alteration affects an area of primary function per 705.2. So now the question becomes if this project scope affect an area of primary function. The scope on the first floor where the ramp is being requested are primarily MEP related along with some cosmetic upgrades. Does that qualify as affecting the primary function?


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Oct 27, 2020)

So the general consensus is the new ramp at the front entrance is required by the code as well as ADA, Im actually of the same opinion and was just playing devils advocate trying to help a friend out. I was also a little annoyed that the AHJ couldn't cite any specific code sections other than ADA Title II which he actually has no authority to enforce.


----------



## steveray (Oct 27, 2020)

IBC Ch. 1:

[A] 102.4.1 Conflicts. Where conflicts occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, *the provisions of this code shall apply.

Commentary:*

The code approaches the application of accessibility
provisions to a facility that is altered by broadly
requiring full conformance to new construction,
meaning full accessibility is expected. Exceptions are
then provided to indicate the conditions under which
less than full accessibility is permitted.
The circumstance under which full compliance with
accessibility provisions is not required is when it is
deemed to be technically infeasible (see the commentary
for the definition of “Technically infeasible” in
Section 202). This is considered reasonable since, if
not provided for, plans for alterations may be otherwise
abandoned by the building owner; the opportunity
to upgrade and increase the current level of
accessibility in an existing building would then be lost.
This concern is also embodied in the requirement that
an altered element or space is expected to be made
accessible to the extent to which it is technically feasible
to do so. In this manner, the code accomplishes
the greatest degree of accessibility while recognizing
the justifiable difficulties that may be involved in providing
full accessibility. Alterations are not required to
exceed new construction requirements (see Section
305.3).


----------



## TheCommish (Oct 27, 2020)

Tim, what state is the project in? Mass. has some interesting requirements from the AAB


----------



## jj1289 (Oct 28, 2020)

In Connecticut the building official does not enforce ADA on the requirements of the State Building Code (IBC, IEBC and ICC/ANSI A117.1). This has been discussed many times at meetings and training programs.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Oct 28, 2020)

TheCommish said:


> Tim, what state is the project in? Mass. has some interesting requirements from the AAB


its in CT


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Oct 28, 2020)

jj1289 said:


> In Connecticut the building official does not enforce ADA on the requirements of the State Building Code (IBC, IEBC and ICC/ANSI A117.1). This has been discussed many times at meetings and training programs.


That is correct, ADA is not something a local AHJ can enforce or mandate here in CT, but it is still federal law and would open of the town to potential lawsuits


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Oct 28, 2020)

steveray said:


> And let me reiterate.....
> 
> 705.1 General. *A facility that is altered shall comply* with the
> applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
> ...


My understanding of IEBC 705.1 is that 705.1.1 through 705.1.14 covers existing elements that need to be adresses and the IBC chapter 11 reference is for new work.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 28, 2020)

Code applies to "both" new and alterations too.


----------



## TheCommish (Oct 28, 2020)

Tim Mailloux said:


> its in CT


wrong state for my knowledge


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Oct 29, 2020)

TheCommish said:


> wrong state for my knowledge


except for the plumbing & accessibility codes CT & MA are not that different.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 29, 2020)

Yes, code is state specific but ADA is universal to all.


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Oct 29, 2020)

And I doubt that you could claim the disproportionality exception because the cost of the ramp (together with all other ADA improvements) will be less than 20% of the overall cost of the renovations.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 29, 2020)

Since it is not a code issue then discuss the problem with your client which also employs the building official.  The client should have something to say if the issue has to do with potential liability of the client.  If the decision is to provide the ramp request an additional fee t o cover the additional design time.


----------

