# ANSI A117.1-2003 vs. 2009



## hughdint (Feb 23, 2017)

I have a question regarding different versions of ANSI A117.1 and want to see what others think.
Georgia uses the 2003 edition of this code (adopted in 2014) and NC uses adopted the 2009 version (adopted in 2013).
We do projects in both states so I am keenly aware of differences in these two codes.
Significantly the width and interpretation of what a "U-shaped kitchen" is in the "Dwelling Units" chapter.
There are other differences as well regarding roll-in showers, etc.
We want to be compliant but also need to use the code as it is intended and the proper interpretation for each jurisdiction.
We would want to apply the newer code when the changes are "clarifications" to what was intended all along, but not necessarily when the newer code applies to real "changes" to the code.
These differences in the reasons behind the editions are not indicated so often we are stuck without knowing how to proceed without applying the most strict interpretation that we have ever read.
To compound this many projects that we do also have to comply with UFAS which has contradictory information as well (often time the 18" CL min form a wall to a toilet is indicated as a, 18" max.)
We know when more than one code applies that we should apply the most strict one, but which is more strict; having the toilet closer to the wall or farther away?
FYI-these are residential apartments.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 23, 2017)

Most restrictve


----------



## JBI (Feb 23, 2017)

As a Code Official you must administer and enforce the Codes and Standards as adopted by the jurisdiction.

As a Design Professional you must design to the adopted Codes and Standards for a particular jurisdiction you are preparing the design for AND the ADA.

Not knowing which side of the counter you are on makes the answer difficult.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 23, 2017)

As does not knowing which specific state you are talking about.  If you are trying to find one "primary" set of rules to build with that can be used applicable to any state - good luck with that.  Many of the adopted codes by each state provide something unseen - and nebulous - known as "safe harbor."  I'm not going to get legal on you but there is really no way to mix and match, even if you have the best of intentions.


----------



## north star (Feb 24, 2017)

*$ ~ $ ~ $*

hughdint,

IMO, whenever you have a project to design for a certain AHJ,
and various questions come up regarding that project, it is my
recommendation for you to compose a list of all of your questions,
and then contact the AHJ to schedule a meeting with them to
discuss.......You can state to them that you are legally bound to
design to the "most restrictive" Standards and then work out
any issues that you may have........I have attended various
meetings in the past like this  [  i.e. - RDP's and the AHJ personnel
together  ]........It seemed to work out pretty well.

Regarding the location of the toilet, ...IMO, the closer to the wall
would [ hopefully ] provide more room for persons to navigate
on to it for use [  i.e. - most restrictive  ], while farther away from
the wall would provide more room for installers & repair personnel
more access to the toilet and its components........From personal
experience, I prefer the toilet farther away from the walls.  


*$ ~ $ ~ $*


----------



## mark handler (Feb 24, 2017)

Filthy McNasty said:


> As does not knowing which specific state you are talking about.  .


?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 24, 2017)

north star said:


> *$ ~ $ ~ $*
> 
> Regarding the location of the toilet, ...IMO, the closer to the wall
> would [ hopefully ] provide more room for persons to navigate
> ...


Distances for Toilets are regulated because some need to use the wall or grab bars for support.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 24, 2017)

mark handler said:


> ?



If you understood safe harbor, you would understand my comment.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 24, 2017)

Start with ADASAD as a minimum for comparison and either "accept" or exceed the minimums such as California 11B or perhaps Florida and Texas have done.

As to distance from wall consider that folks are growing larger, not smaller. 18" may not be exceeded but in many cases is not enough and can be justified (depending on where used - beriatrics ward, pro football locker room, etc) as requiring a larger dimension.
Also with regards to beriatrics and football, consider floor mounted WC's vs wall hung vs load ratings for bowls and hangers.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 24, 2017)

Filthy McNasty said:


> If you understood safe harbor, you would understand my comment.



NO I cannot understand the composition of your Sentence.


Filthy McNasty said:


> As does not knowing which specific state you are talking about.  .


Does not make grammatical sense.


----------



## hughdint (Feb 24, 2017)

Thank you all for your comments.
A few replies to get the conversation back on track:


mark handler said:


> Most restrictve


What is considered most restrictive, in your opinion, close or far?



Filthy McNasty said:


> not knowing which specific state you are talking about.


I am not trying to apply a "one code suits all" type approach but only trying to determine if the differences between the two codes are due to _changes_ or _clarifications. _If you must know as per my OP I am talking about Georgia.

I understand the concept of "safe harbor" and would prefer to apply the most recent version (2009) in all circumstances, but then we get  push-back saying the actually adopted code says different..., my other Architect... So we want to apply the actually adopted code as it is most narrowly defined in each situation.
Note to others (not quoted): ADA does not apply to the inside of an apartment unit, only to common and public spaces.


----------



## hughdint (Feb 24, 2017)

mark handler said:


> NO I cannot understand the composition of your Sentence.
> 
> Does not make grammatical sense.


If you read the post before FMcN's  post the grammatical sense is clear.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 27, 2017)

Have you compared "your" code to ADASAD (ADA Standards for Accessible Design 2010) minimums?
That would be your starting point, ANSI 2009 is not a safe harbor so your code should meet or exceed the ADASAD.


----------



## hughdint (Mar 2, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> Have you compared "your" code to ADASAD (ADA Standards for Accessible Design 2010) minimums?
> That would be your starting point, ANSI 2009 is not a safe harbor so your code should meet or exceed the ADASAD.


ANSI/ICC 117.1 (2003) is a safe harbor.
This is tangent to my original question, but...
I wonder why the newer 2009 version is not a safe harbor.
Possibly because they have not evaluated it yet?
As per previous post, the scoping of the ADASAD says that ADA does not apply (or rather has a limited application) to the interior of a residential dwelling unit.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 2, 2017)

That is true, the Safe harbor of ANSI is only related to HUD/FHA multi-family projects.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2017)

Filthy McNasty said:


> If you understood safe harbor, you would understand my comment.





http://idighardware.com/2017/03/tower-of-babel-sheldon-wolfe/


----------

