# RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



## Rick18071 (Jan 28, 2010)

I told the contractor that the ramp needs hand rails and curbs and a 5'x5' landing where the ramp  has a 90 degree change of direction. The ramp goes to a raised platform in a church. It's against the wall on one side and open on the other side. The top of the ramp is 27" high where it meets the platform so guards are not required. 4 foot wide with a 4x4 landing at the change of direction.

2006IBC/ANSI A117.1-2003

After thinking about it I went back to check the slope. It is just under 1/20, so it's not a "ramp". But it sure looks like one. So I told the contractor I was wrong and the "not a ramp" does not need the changes that I told him to do. It just looks dangerus for a wheelchair to use it to me.

Anyone have comments?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Rick18071 said:
			
		

> I told the contractor that the ramp needs hand rails and curbs and a 5'x5' landing where the ramp  has a 90 degree change of direction. The ramp goes to a raised platform in a church. It's against the wall on one side and open on the other side. The top of the ramp is 27" high where it meets the platform so guards are not required. 4 foot wide with a 4x4 landing at the change of direction.2006IBC/ANSI A117.1-2003
> 
> After thinking about it I went back to check the slope. It is just under 1/20, so it's not a "ramp". But it sure looks like one. So I told the contractor I was wrong and the "not a ramp" does not need the changes that I told him to do. It just looks dangerus for a wheelchair to use it to me.
> 
> Anyone have comments?


The raised platform in a church is for worship not performance.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Didn't know there was a exception for worship. What section is it?


----------



## Glennman CBO (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

The definition of a platform covers platforms used for worship, as well as performance (410.2), but the 1108.2.7 "perfomance area" is specific to areas used for "performance", and it might be construed that since worship is excluded, that platforms in churches are not required to be accessible. Since in the original definition, worship is mentioned exclusively aside from performance, these are distinct uses, and it is excluded from 1108.2.7.

Although, the term might be left out simply to avoid redundncy (?)

Is this where you are going Brudgers?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> The definition of a platform covers platforms used for worship, as well as performance (410.2), but the 1108.2.7 "perfomance area" is specific to areas used for "performance", and it might be construed that since worship is excluded, that platforms in churches are not required to be accessible. Since in the original definition, worship is mentioned exclusively aside from performance, these are distinct uses, and it is excluded from 1108.2.7.Although, the term might be left out simply to avoid redundncy (?)
> 
> Is this where you are going Brudgers?


Exactly, a platform used for worship does not require accessiblity under either the IBC or the ADA.

First Amendment.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Do you think the first amendment excepts anything thing built by religons?

Nobody called it a performance platform. It's only a rasied area. exceptions for raised areas are in section 1103.2.7 which does not work for this. I wouldn't call it an employee work area or press box.

If they need it or not is not the issue. I did not do the plan review. Maybe they wanted the ramp any way and it wasn't required. I am just doing the inspection and it's on the approved plans. It looks dangerous to me.

When I use to go to church we had a lot of performances on that platform. music groups, plays, choir concerts, even had a magic show for the kids once. Many times there where more performances than worship.

Maybe they are faith healers and want to roll people in wheelchairs up the ramp and heal them. Now that would be some a performance.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Brudgers,

I recently inspected a new church building. Due to the constraints of size and the configuration of the platform in relation to the seating, they have an exterior ramp that wraps around the outside of the building and terminates at a door at the rear of the 21" high platform. Recently, someone in this forum had brought to light section 1104.5 where it states that if a circulation path is interior, then the accessible route shall also be interior. I was not aware of this section when I performed the inspection, and apperently neither was the plans examiner. They have a final now.

I hope you are correct about the platform used for worship not being required to be accessible. I'll certainly keep this in mind the next time I see one, and I plan on doing some more research in this area.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 30, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> Brudgers,I recently inspected a new church building. Due to the constraints of size and the configuration of the platform in relation to the seating, they have an exterior ramp that wraps around the outside of the building and terminates at a door at the rear of the 21" high platform. Recently, someone in this forum had brought to light section 1104.5 where it states that if a circulation path is interior, then the accessible route shall also be interior. I was not aware of this section when I performed the inspection, and apperently neither was the plans examiner. They have a final now.
> 
> I hope you are correct about the platform used for worship not being required to be accessible. I'll certainly keep this in mind the next time I see one, and I plan on doing some more research in this area.


The IBC exempts commercial interests like observation galleries from vertical accessibility.

It exempts 3000 aggregate square feet of other levels and mezzanines from vertical accessibility.

In light of that, interpreting the code in a way that doesn't require access to worship platforms is pretty reasonable.

Particularly when places of worship are exempt from accessibility requirements at the Federal level.

There's no reason to suffer "inspector's remorse" over this.

Then again, there's no good reason to suffer it ever.

You didn't design it.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Brudgers,

I don't have a copy of the ADAAG. Does it specifically exempt churches, or is it only implied?


----------



## FredK (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> Brudgers,I don't have a copy of the ADAAG. Does it specifically exempt churches, or is it only implied?


Yes.

From ADA Accessibility Guidelines

http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/ ... %20GENERAL.

Chapter 3 Definitions you get this for private and public facility:

Private Facility.

A place of public accommodation or a commercial facility subject to title III of the ADA and 28 C.F.R. part 36 or a transportation facility subject to title III of the ADA and 49 C.F.R. 37.45.

Public Facility.

A facility or portion of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public entity subject to title II of the ADA and 28 C.F.R. part 35 or to title II of the ADA and 49 C.F.R. 37.41 or 37.43.

Under title III of the ADA

http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html#anchor-36101

Sec.36.101 Purpose.

(e) Exemptions and exclusions. This part does not apply to any private club (except to the extent that the facilities of the private club are made available to customers or patrons of a place of public accommodation), or to any religious entity or public entity.

So can they be yes.  I always ask if they are doing ADA and the response is yes and do plan review and inspection to that.  If they object I follow their wishes.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

My advice, unless you are doing a Federal facility, do not use "access-board.gov."

I've seen too many misinterpretations based on what someone found their.

ADA is at www.ada.gov

That's where to start for anything to do with ADA.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Rick18071 said:
			
		

> After thinking about it I went back to check the slope. It is just under 1/20, so it's not a "ramp". But it sure looks like one. So I told the contractor I was wrong and the "not a ramp" does not need the changes that I told him to do. It just looks dangerus for a wheelchair to use it to me.Anyone have comments?


You are correct that what you saw is not a ramp.

_ADAAG 4.8 Ramps. 4.8.1 General. Any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20 shall be considered a ramp and shall comply with 4.8._

_IBC 1002.1 RAMP. A walking surface that has a running slope steeper than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope)._

_ICC 117.1 106.5 ramp: A walking surface that has a running slope steeper than 1:20._

The word "worship" is non-existant in the text of ADAAG. The word "church" appears twice in the appendix table for assistive listening devices.

The 3000 sf exception in the IBC refers to accessiblity to stories and mezzanines:

_1104.4 Multilevel buildings and facilities. At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible level, including mezzanines, in multilevel buildings and facilities._

_Exceptions:_

_1. An accessible route is not required to stories and mezzanines above and below accessible levels that have an aggregate area of not more than 3,000 square feet._

The 3000 sf exception in the ADAAG refers to elevator access to stories:

_ADAAG 4.1.3(5) Exception 1 Elevators are not required in facilities that are less than three stories or that have less than 3000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider, or another type of facility as determined by the Attorney General. ..._

I have a couple of questions for all. A little back ground, here in Ohio we have adopted the ADAAG as a referenced standard and section 1101.2 has been changed to read "Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with this code and ADAAG" which means we use Chapter 11 and ADAAG together whichever yields the greater accessibility.

The ADA on the other hand is a civil rights law in which the "aggrieved", may petition to the DOJ for investigation and/or relief. For the last 3 or 4 years we have been hit by "drive-by" ADA lawsuits which bypass the DOJ and file directly in federal court and settle for small amounts and/or large legal fees. http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A46860

The questions are: under what authority do you enforce the ADA? (not ADAAG which is the appendix to ADA)

By enforcing ADA, are you subjecting your jurisdiction to exposure to litigation?

[edit:] or, by saying ADA you mean ADAAG and left off the last 2 letters?


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I know this ramp issue is not whether or not the 2003 ANSI 117.1 applies to churches (religious organizations), but I find the evolution of the topic fascinating. I looked up Title III section 1-5000 Dept of Justice ADA technical bulliten (as linked by Brudgers), and found that religious organizations are specifically exempt from "ADA" requirements.

What I'm not clear on is the connection between the ANSI and the DOJ ADA. The 2003 ANSI 117.1 is adopted by the State of Washington as a referenced standard (IBC 1101.2). If the DOJ ADA does not apply to religious organizations, does the ANSI? Also, where does the federal ADAAG fall into the mix. In other words, which is first in line, and how are these documents related to one another? (I should probably start a new thread at this point)


----------



## brudgers (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> I know this ramp issue is not whether or not the 2003 ANSI 117.1 applies to churches (religious organizations), but I find the evolution of the topic fascinating. I looked up Title III section 1-5000 Dept of Justice ADA technical bulliten (as linked by Brudgers), and found that religious organizations are specifically exempt from "ADA" requirements.What I'm not clear on is the connection between the ANSI and the DOJ ADA. The 2003 ANSI 117.1 is adopted by the State of Washington as a referenced standard (IBC 1101.2). If the DOJ ADA does not apply to religious organizations, does the ANSI? Also, where does the federal ADAAG fall into the mix. In other words, which is first in line, and how are these documents related to one another? (I should probably start a new thread at this point)


ANSI A117.1 is the ICK's not invented here response to ADAAG.

Over the past 20 _friggin years_, rather than bring it into line with *FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW* and make everyone's life easier, it has continued to diverge.

My take is that because ADAAG is civil rights, a very broad interpretation in favor of accessibity is warranted...and this is consistent with case law.

On the other hand Chapter 11 and ANSI A117.1 are merely building code, and customary latitude in interpretation is appropriate.

In places such as Florida, the accessibility code has been certified by the DOJ as equivalent or beyond ADAAG.

This makes everyone's life easier, particularly since such codes don't get revised every three years just to give someone jollies.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

After reading the comentary's general notes on Ch 11 of the Building Code, it appears that the ANSI is simply a consensus document that puts the DOJ ADA into a building code form (stemming from the ADAAG), but it still starts with the DOJ ADA (and ABA). So with this information, it appears that a jurisdiction cannot enforce even the ANSI onto religious organizations. I suppose that if a church were to be built, and the people wanted to have certain accessible features, that is fine, but no building department can actually require them to have the features (?) Or, in the case of performing a plan review or an inspection, one cannot include the lack of an accessible feature into either a comment letter, or a correction.

Am I reading this information correctly?


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Here in PA we are required by state law to go by 2003 ANSI 117.1 and the IBC for accessabilty and nothing else.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> After reading the comentary's general notes on Ch 11 of the Building Code, it appears that the ANSI is simply a consensus document that puts the DOJ ADA into a building code form (stemming from the ADAAG), but it still starts with the DOJ ADA (and ABA). So with this information, it appears that a jurisdiction cannot enforce even the ANSI onto religious organizations. I suppose that if a church were to be built, and the people wanted to have certain accessible features, that is fine, but no building department can actually require them to have the features (?) Or, in the case of performing a plan review or an inspection, one cannot include the lack of an accessible feature into either a comment letter, or a correction.Am I reading this information correctly?


Despite whatever bs is in the commentary, ANSI A117.1 is not ADAAG in building code form.

It's an entirely different document.

Several provisions don't come close to meeting ADAAG in either letter or spirit

If you want to see what ADAAG looks like in building code form, look at ADAAG.

It's written to be clearly enforcable...in fact state's like Florida do enforce ADAAG with a few additional requirements.

Look at chapter 11 here:  http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/florida_codes/


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

'snot a ramp since the slope is not greater than 1:20.

We did the exact same thing in our church.

However, we also added a 4 inch curb adjacent to the ramp so that wheels from whatever goes up and down the sloped floor are kept on the slope and not on the lower floor.  That's not a requirement in the ANSI but alluded to in the ADAAG (but, as is well attested the ADA does not apply to churches).

You're right.  The ramp is not a ramp.

(btw: hi!)


----------



## Paul Sweet (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Actually ANSI A117.1 was around since the 1960s, and ADAAG grew out of it.  When the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) was passed in 1990 the Feds took UFAS (Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards - which applied to agencies subject to the Architectural Barriers Act - the military, Post Office, GSA, and HUD), which was based on the 1980 ANSI A117.1, made a few more modifications, and added a few provisions (such as Areas of Rescue Assistance) to it.  ANSI A117.1 has been updated regularly, while DOJ (Dept. of Justice) still hasn't formally adopted the 2004 ADAAG revisions.

ADA grew out of the 1964 Civil Rights law, which exempted private clubs and religious organizations.

ICC can still require accessibility in buildings not subject to ADA.  DOJ just won't help somebody sue them if they don't meet ADAAG.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Bottom line...Can the 2003 ICC ANSI 117.1 or ch. 11 of the IBC regulate religious organizations?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

bottom line - Yes.

Chapter 11 applies to all buildings unless otherwise exempted by local amendment.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I guess then that there is no point to the fact that the federal ADA (DOJ) does not apply to religious organizations, if the Building Code and the ANSI do apply. Rule of thumb is that if you think you have discovered some huge thing that goes totally against the grain in everything that you've been taught and learned, then it probably isn't so. Great discussion.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> I guess then that there is no point to the fact that the federal ADA (DOJ) does not apply to religious organizations, if the Building Code and the ANSI do apply. Rule of thumb is that if you think you have discovered some huge thing that goes totally against the grain in everything that you've been taught and learned, then it probably isn't so. Great discussion.


Just for the record, I don't thing there's a huge exception.

I think the code is clear regarding what it requires, and it does not require accessiblity to a platform for worship.

This shouldn't be surprising given that it does not require access to  portions of merchantile, business, and other occupancies.


----------



## FredK (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> Bottom line...Can the 2003 ICC ANSI 117.1 or ch. 11 of the IBC regulate religious organizations?


I still say no if they claim the private status.  Only had one group do that in all the time I've done a plan review.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

The private status works with the ADAAG but not with the IBC.


----------



## MarkRandall (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Just because something is exempted in ADAAG, it doesn't make it exempt under IBC/ANSI. FredK, Where in IBC or ANSI is an exemption for private status? Back before codes caught up with ADAAG, yes there were exemptions that were valid. These days are not the same.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Mark is correct.  IBC / ANSI does  not exempt religious groups as the ADA does.  However IBC (2006) Section 1103.2.3 wouild allow a raised pulpit to be not accessible.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

One of the things, Fred, that needs to be remembered is that in Arizona you have the state accessibility regs as well as the local building codes (as adopted).  The state accessibility regs are based on the ADA.  Any "private organization" falling under the exemptions in teh ADA are likewise exempt under Arizona law due to the way it is adopted.  That does not mean that it is exempt from the building code requirements.  These are separate rules adopted by separate entities.  If there is no building code or the building code has been modified when adopted (such as to strike Chapter 11 and substitute "do per AZ Access rules") then you may have a case where it applies.  Otherwise you have to address each set of rules according to their scoping.

It's just like having the EPA rules for site work as well as the building code provisions for soil work.


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 2, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Rguarding IBC 1103.2.3 I would not call a raised platform with a pulpit an employee work area. Even if you put up a gate with a sign "employees only". I don't think the couple being married there are employees.

It's hard for me to beleve that the ADA would not require a nursing home owned by a church to be accessable.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

A nursing home owned by a church is not a religious institution but a caring institution.  It has to meet the ADA.  The church is not.

I agree that the raised area in the front is NOT an employee area.  It needs access, but if the slope is not more than 1:20, it's a sloped floor and not a ramp.  No handrails required.  If the drop is less than 30 inches, no guard is required.  I'd still advise them to do something to protect the edge against wheels slipping off - whether its from a wheelchair or a movable scaffold to change lamps in the light fixtures.  It's a safety item that isn't required by code but a pretty logical idea.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I think we are using different terms here.  The main part of the altar needs to be accessible for weddings, choir, special speakers etc.  The small (1person) raised pulpit from where the minister would deliver his sermon would not be required to be accessible.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Oh, OK.

No the pulpit isn't required to be accessible since its not required (at least in most churches) to be used to present the sermon.  In those religious denominations where the pulpit is elevated and mandated by church policy to be used for sermon presentation, it could be considered an employee area since *only* the clergy would be allowed to use it anyway.

Sorry for the confusion. . . .  :?


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

If places of worship are exempt from accessibility requirements then how do you enforce 1025.5.1 and 1108.2.3 when the balcony or mezzanine seating exceeds 25% of the total seating?

jus askin.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Worship places are NOT exempt from the buidling code - only the ADA.

Enforce the code!


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> I think we are using different terms here.  The main part of the altar needs to be accessible for weddings, choir, special speakers etc.  The small (1person) raised pulpit from where the minister would deliver his sermon would not be required to be accessible.


A wedding is a religous sacrament when conducted in a church not a performance.

Chiors are part of religous services as are special speakers such as traveling clergy.

None of these things are performances.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I did not classify them as "performances".  I am not sure what your point is


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> I did not classify them as "performances".  I am not sure what your point is


The raised area of a place of worship does not require accessiblity (as I stated before).

Chapter 11 requires accessiblity to raised areas used for performance.

It does not require accessiblity to raised areas used for worship.

You can read the section yourself.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I just re-read the section.

1103.2.7 exempts raised areas used for purposes of security, life safety or fire safety including, but not limited to, observation galleries, prison towers, fire towers or lifeguard stands.

Which applies to the church worship area?  Or is that another section that you are referring to?   :?:


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

The altar would certainly be classified as an employee work area.  The pastor is an employee and the altar is where he works.  I was referencing Section 1103.1 (2006) which states that all buildings shall be accessible.  The exception in 1103.2.3 states tht employee work areas are only required to comply with 907.9.1.2. 1007, and 1104.3.1.  If the employee work area is less than 150 square feet and raised over 7 inches then no accessibility is required.  Most altar areas are larger than 150 square feet so the employee area (altar) would have to be accessible as required by 1104.3.1.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Sorry, Coug.  But I have to disagree.

The alter area is not "used primarily by employees in the execution of their employment."  It is, in fact, in many denominations used by the laity to read, speak or serve.  Those are not employees.  Only in a few denominations is the alter area exclusive to the clergy.  And for those denominations, the clergy would take umbrage with the term "employee" as they are "called to serve" and not hirelings.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Since 1103.1 starts by saying all buildings are required to be accessible.  Section 1103.2 then follows with exceptions 1103.2.1 through 1103.2.15 and 1103.2.1 includes any other exceptions identified in 1104 through 1110, which section do you believe allows the altar to not have an accessible route?  Without an identified exception, 1103.1 would apply.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> I just re-read the section.1103.2.7 exempts raised areas used for purposes of security, life safety or fire safety including, but not limited to, observation galleries, prison towers, fire towers or lifeguard stands.
> 
> Which applies to the church worship area?  Or is that another section that you are referring to?   :?:


1104.4 Duh.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I see your line of thought.  Webster's defines performance as:

1 a : the execution of an action b : something accomplished : deed, feat

2 : the fulfillment of a claim, promise, or request : implementation

3 a : the action of representing a character in a play b : a public presentation or exhibition 

4 a : the ability to perform : efficiency b : the manner in which a mechanism performs

5 : the manner of reacting to stimuli : behavior

6 : the linguistic behavior of an individual : parole; also : the ability to speak a certain language — compare competence 3

Would not worship be a public presentation?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Gene Boecker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1104.4 Duh.

1104.4 requires access to multiple level areas including mezzanines.  1104.4 says nothing about worship.  Double Duh  :lol:


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Worship places are NOT exempt from the buidling code - only the ADA.Enforce the code!


You said that several times througout this thread.  That was the point of my rhetorical question while ADA may exempt places of worship from accessibility, the building code still requires accessibility as well as accessible means of egress. How do you have accessibility "from" if you don't have accessibility "to".

(Suffering from a long Arch. Review Board meeting this evening.) :cry:


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Sorry, Dan.

(Both for your long evening as well as any confusion on my part).  It's access from as well as to.  You're right.

(I guess it's my life in life safety that springs such means of egress verbiage).


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1104.4 requires access to multiple level areas including mezzanines.  1104.4 says nothing about worship.  Double Duh  :lol:[/quote:jhprhjtj]

Next time you read code section 1104.4, try to keep your head out at least until you come to either 1104.5 or 1105...which ever comes first.

See exception 2 for the occupancy A specifics.

See exception 1 for a general exemption if less than 3000 square feet.

I can hear it now..."but you didn't say to read the whole thing."


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> I see your line of thought.  Webster's defines performance as:1 a : the execution of an action b : something accomplished : deed, feat
> 
> 2 : the fulfillment of a claim, promise, or request : implementation
> 
> ...


Good luck with defending  any sort of restrictive definition of worship in court against a First Amendment challenge...you might want to speak to your department's council first.

BTW, this issue is directly a result of trying to apply a document that doesn't cover places of worship to places of worship...and of course trying to sidestep the issues around the first amendment which are inevitable when doing so.

Jurisdictions, such as Florida which have adopted ADAAG as their code don't have to worry about this because they haven't changed the scope of accessibility from what is required at the Federal level.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Rick18071

You know that you will be getting audited by PA L&I and the results of the audit can affect your employment and certification status.

I would apply the IBC and ANSI 117.1 where is tells you to and let the church file an appeal with the PA Accessibility Advisory Board.

If they church feels they have to use the first ammendment, let them.

Just do your job and let the chips fall where they may.  You will get into more trouble with your career if you don't apply the codes.  IBC and ANSI don't exclude churches from accessibility.

The DOJ is reactive and not proactive.  Not your problem.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> Rick18071You know that you will be getting audited by PA L&I and the results of the audit can affect your employment and certification status.
> 
> I would apply the IBC and ANSI 117.1 where is tells you to and let the church file an appeal with the PA Accessibility Advisory Board.
> 
> ...


If you follow the IBC, churches are not required to provide vertical accessibility to much of anything outside the seating area...and only limited vertical accessibility within it as specified in 1108.

BTW, first amendment suits don't involve the DOJ...unless the Federal government is being sued.


----------



## JBI (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Amendment I   Congess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedon of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Possibly the most misunderstood provision of our Constitution.

All the first part actually says is that there shall never be a National Religion (think Church of England).

The second part merely provides that ALL systems of religious belief may be freely practiced within the United States.

That is all.

Before you start quoting case law, supreme court decisions and OPINIONS, please understand that all I'm doing is reading the words that are written. I am not reading into them to justify anything. All case law, all supreme court decisions and all OPINIONS that give any additional weight, leverage or meaning to those words are hogwash, plain and simple.

Personally I wouldn't soil a hog with any of it.

There is no Constitutional prohibition on dispalying the Ten Commandments on or in a Govt. Building.

There is no immunity from lawfully adopted rules and/or regulations.

There is simply no national religion and freedom to follow the teachings of your choice.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Gene Boecker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Next time you read code section 1104.4, try to keep your head out at least until you come to either 1104.5 or 1105...which ever comes first.

See exception 2 for the occupancy A specifics.

See exception 1 for a general exemption if less than 3000 square feet.

I can hear it now..."but you didn't say to read the whole thing."

First, if you meant another section, why not cite that one?

Second, exception #2 to 1104.5 says nothing about assembly occupancies; exception #2 to section 1105.1 says nothing about assembly occupancies nor does exception #2 to Section 1105.1.6.  And, exception #2 to section 1104.4 says nothing about assembly occupancies except by reference to 1108 which does not discuss the specific situation (unless you are trying to use the 1108.2.8 performance area provisions - if so, a real stretch citing 1104.4).

What book are you reading???

Never mind, I really don't want to know.

On a positive note: The 3000 sf exception in 1104.4, exception #1 was not part of the initial discussion - albeit a valid argument.  Altar/stage/platform areas less than 3000 sf would not need access under the IBC - the same threshold as the ADAAG and the ADA/ABA.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I would respectfully suggest that the 3,000 square foot rule has no place in this discussion.  The 3,000 square foot rule applies to stories or mezzanines above and below accessible levels.  It would be quite a stretch to consider a platform, or even a formal stage, equal to a mezzanine.

My thought is that brudgers is trying too hard to find leway for churches, and believe me I am not anti-church.  Far from it.  I am much more comfortable with the positions stated by Gene.  As someone else implied, if the church feels strongly about it let them appeal and let someone else take the heat.

Our job is to enforce the code as written.  Our code does not include ADA or ADAAG


----------



## JBI (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Exactly!


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> I would respectfully suggest that the 3,000 square foot rule has no place in this discussion.  The 3,000 square foot rule applies to stories or mezzanines above and below accessible levels.  It would be quite a stretch to consider a platform, or even a formal stage, equal to a mezzanine.My thought is that brudgers is trying too hard to find leway for churches, and believe me I am not anti-church.  Far from it.  I am much more comfortable with the positions stated by Gene.  As someone else implied, if the church feels strongly about it let them appeal and let someone else take the heat.
> 
> Our job is to enforce the code as written.  Our code does not include ADA or ADAAG


I take it you didn't actually read the definition of "mezzanine" in the building code before responding.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

oops!


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Just for clarification or further obfuscation:

1. The IBC does not require *stories or mezzanines* of 3000 sf or less above or below an accessible level to be accessible (1104.4).  A platform is neither a story or mezzanine.

2. The exception in ADAAG does not require elevators to be installed to a *story or stories* above or below less than 3000 sf in buildings 3 stories or less (ADAAG 4.1.3(5)). It excepts elevators, but, does not except accessibility to those stories as stated further in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) "_The elevator exemption set forth in this paragraph does not obviate or limit in any way the obligation to comply with the other accessibility requirements established in section 4.1.3. For example, floors above or below the accessible ground floor must meet the requirements of this section except for elevator service._".

[edit:] I see there were a half dozen posts since I started writing this. :twisted:


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why you pikkin' on me???

I didn't write the last two comments??????     [/quote:tyuybn89]

You apparently didn't read my comment either.  Start with "Big Mac wrote:"


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> Just for clarification or further obfuscation: 1. The IBC does not require *stories or mezzanines* of 3000 sf or less above or below an accessible level to be accessible (1104.4).  A platform is neither a story or mezzanine.
> 
> 2. The exception in ADAAG does not require elevators to be installed to a *story or stories* above or below less than 3000 sf in buildings 3 stories or less (ADAAG 4.1.3(5)). It excepts elevators, but, does not except accessibility to those stories as stated further in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) "_The elevator exemption set forth in this paragraph does not obviate or limit in any way the obligation to comply with the other accessibility requirements established in section 4.1.3. For example, floors above or below the accessible ground floor must meet the requirements of this section except for elevator service._".
> 
> [edit:] I see there were a half dozen posts since I started writing this. :twisted:


Read the definition of "mezzanine."

Tell me how a platform does not fall within it?


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Read the definition of "mezzanine."
> 
> Tell me how a platform does not fall within it?


I read the definition of mezzanine.  I also read 505 and placed 505.1 below.



> 505.1 General. A mezzanine or mezzanines in compliance with Section 505 shall be considered a portion of the story below. *Such mezzanines shall not contribute to either the building area *or number of stories as regulated by Section 503.1. The area of the mezzanine shall be included in determining the fire area defined in Section 702. The clear height above and below the mezzanine floor construction shall not be less than 7 feet.


Are you saying that a raised area (platform) of 1 or more risers does not contribute to the building area because it is a mezzanine?  I can see where a platform could have 7 feet of clear height below, though.

Did you read the definition of platform?


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I would agree that a platform *"could"* have 7' below, but I have never seen one.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

A platform is not a mezzanine.  A mezzanine, as defined in Section 502.1 is an intermediate level between the floor and the ceiling.  There is no usable space underneath a platform.  The 3,000 sf exception is intended for a group of cubicles or private offices.  A small cubible farm does not require an accessible route through the farm.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I don't want to go further off topic (does anybody remember it's about a ramp that's not a ramp?), but I can't stop myself.  Level is an undefined word used by the Ick that is used far to frequently for far to diverse situations such as level as in floor or horizontal surface (like a mezzanine   ), 12th grade level, grade plane level, level of protection, level of exit discharge ...ad nauseum.

Steering back on topic (I think) level is not mentioned in the platform section. Unfortunately, the space under platforms may be used, see 410.4.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

What I said originally is that a platform used for worship isn't required to be accessible under IBC.

If you are going to read 1104.1 Exception 1 as only applying to stories and mezzanines and not covering a platform, then it is inconsistent to read 1108.2.7 as applying to worship areas as well as those for "performance."

IMO it is ridiculous to exempt entire stories from accessibility but not a pulpit, altar, or choir risers.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

I look at these raised areas as performance areas. Performance of holy services, preaching,  sacrements, baptisms, weddings, healings, depiction of scriptual writings and so on. I don't see anywhere in the IBC that provides an exception. I am not about to read between the lines. Not all builings have additional floors or mezzanines so exemption of those areas does include all buildings, only those with those features. If the church performs on a mezzanine fine, they can even have a platform on the mezzanine.

BTW - Roll Tide!  My Grandson at 2 months


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Plans Approver, the kid's cute but what with that shirt?

Perhaps what we really need to do is go back to the reason for the accessiiblity code in the first place.  The intent is to give equal access to persons of diability as is afforded to able bodied persons.  Are you really comfortable taking the stand and defending your position to not allow persons of disability onto a platform.  I'm not.  As has been pointed out performing is not limited to performing for profit, it includes all types of performances whether religeous, school plays, visiting choirs, invited guest speakers, etc.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> Plans Approver, the kid's cute but what with that shirt?Perhaps what we really need to do is go back to the reason for the accessiiblity code in the first place.  The intent is to give equal access to persons of diability as is afforded to able bodied persons.  Are you really comfortable taking the stand and defending your position to not allow persons of disability onto a platform.  I'm not.  As has been pointed out performing is not limited to performing for profit, it includes all types of performances whether religeous, school plays, visiting choirs, invited guest speakers, etc.


Amen. My position has always been that accessibility *is required to platforms*. Maybe there have been so many posts that that wasn't clear.

As for the shirt, my daughter's husband was a recruit until he blew his knees out. Next generation?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Amen, Dan.

(except for the shirt thing. . . )


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> Plans Approver, the kid's cute but what with that shirt?Perhaps what we really need to do is go back to the reason for the accessiiblity code in the first place.  The intent is to give equal access to persons of diability as is afforded to able bodied persons.  Are you really comfortable taking the stand and defending your position to not allow persons of disability onto a platform.  I'm not.  As has been pointed out performing is not limited to performing for profit, it includes all types of performances whether religeous, school plays, visiting choirs, invited guest speakers, etc.


Accessibility as civil rights law doesn't extend to places of worship.

When it comes to worship, the right to accessibility comes into conflict with the right to worship as one chooses.

One is is a Federal, state or local statute, the other is part of the constitution.

"Performance area" is directly from ADAAG.  By definition anything in ADA does not apply to places of worship.

If the IBC was intended to apply to areas used for worship, it would so state...of course it doesn't since doing so would conflict with the scheme for turning A117.1 and the IBC into ADA law.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> "Performance area" is directly from ADAAG.  By definition anything in ADA does not apply to places of worship.
> 
> If the IBC was intended to apply to areas used for worship, it would so state...of course it doesn't since doing so would conflict with the scheme for turning A117.1 and the IBC into ADA law.


Almost.  The IBC indicates all buildings are subject to Chapter 11 and then lists the areas where non-applicability exists.  As you note, it is not federal law.  It is stand alone.  The IBC does not have first amendment issues with its application or subjective feelings about fraternal organizations like the members of congress espouse.

The IBC is not a federal law wannabe so get off that shtick.  It's a building code not civil rights legislation.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

We do not enforce civil rights in this office

We do not enforce federeal law in this office

We do not enforce ada in this office

We do not enforce ADAAG in this office

We do enforce the 2006 IBC and ANSI/ICC A117.1 in this office


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> We do not enforce civil rights in this officeWe do not enforce federeal law in this office
> 
> We do not enforce ada in this office
> 
> ...


I'm sure you do.

The question is, "Do you do it correctly?"


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Almost.  The IBC indicates all buildings are subject to Chapter 11 and then lists the areas where non-applicability exists.  As you note, it is not federal law.  It is stand alone.  The IBC does not have first amendment issues with its application or subjective feelings about fraternal organizations like the members of congress espouse.

The IBC is not a federal law wannabe so get off that shtick.  It's a building code not civil rights legislation.

Yes group A buildings are exempt from vertical accessibility except as specified in 1108.

Since worship areas are not required to provide vertical accessibility by 1108, none need be provided.

The ICC and Access Board tried to jamb the IBC through as ADAAG.  Fortunately they failed.

All the effort was on changing ADAAG to match A117.1 and Chapter 11.  None was on changing the building code.  Your tax dollars at work.


----------



## JBI (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

"...the right to accessibility comes into conflict with the right to worship as one chooses..."

Not to a parpalegic priest.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> "Performance area" is directly from ADAAG.  By definition anything in ADA does not apply to places of worship.


Actually, "performance area" or "performance areas" do *not* appear in ADAAG. Performance areas are addressed in IBC 1108.2.7. In IBC Chapter 2, you'll find:

"_RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, PLACE OF. A building or portion thereof intended for the __*performance of religious services*__._"

I'm done with this thread. See ya at the next one.


----------



## JBI (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

OUCH!


----------



## brudgers (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Be sure you require accessible choir lofts, baptisteries, and pulpits.

Meanwhile, the the sanctuary will remain intended for worship and not the performance of religious services.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

brudgers, I am amazed that you would be so concerned about civil rights and yet deny those rights to a disabled pastor, guest speaker, performer, etc. by not allowing them access to the platform.  Ironic.

I attmepted to post a response a little while ago but it appears that it didn't take.  If this turns out to be a duplicate, I apologize.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> brudgers, I am amazed that you would be so concerned about civil rights and yet deny those rights to a disabled pastor, guest speaker, performer, etc. by not allowing them access to the platform.  Ironic.I attmepted to post a response a little while ago but it appears that it didn't take.  If this turns out to be a duplicate, I apologize.


Federal Civil Rights law exempts places of worship from Title III of the ADA.

There is no right to accessibility within a church, even though providing it may be the ethical thing to do, because the First Amendment to The US Constitution trumps civil rights law.

Look at it this way.

Religious groups are allowed to discriminate in ways that other sorts of organizations are not.

First Baptist Church of Springfield  doesn't have to justify not hiring a Buddhist as pastor.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Well I will give you the fact that you certainly have a unique approach.  Apparently you are content to just keep rambling until you wear everybody out.  Whether the thought process is rational or not.

What it "they" say - don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up.


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 6, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

burdgers, are you saying that anything related to worship (including whole buildings like churches, synagogue, temples) is exempt from the IBC or only to chapter 11. Or do you mean only the area of the building where the worship is actually done. In my church the worshiping was done on the main floor of a church.

I only started this asking about a ramp. I never considered apply this to a worship area would be a problem. I am only paid to enforce the code and not civil rights.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 6, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Unlike other definitions in the building code, "Places of Worship" are defined by intent rather than usage.

A building intended for "the free expression of belief" might be, on the surface indistinguishable, from a "place of worship," yet cannot be classified as a "place of worship" since it is intended for something other than "the performance of religious services."

So long as the space is intended for something other than "performing religious services" it is not a place of worship, though it would still  be Occupancy A3 since it is similar to other uses in the category, and may even be used for worship.

BTW, I assure you that the intent of the space is not "performance of religious services" even if it is conducive to doing so.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 6, 2010)

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> Well I will give you the fact that you certainly have a unique approach.  Apparently you are content to just keep rambling until you wear everybody out.  Whether the thought process is rational or not.What it "they" say - don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up.


The interesting thing is that the further you unpack the code, the less solid the ground.

It turns out that the only way to determine if a ramp is required is to look at the intent, not use, of the space.

I suspect that a determination based on intent is unique within the building code.

I also believe that classification based on intent places the determination with the applicant, not the Code Official...particularly when it comes to religion.

The problem with the Ick is that it tries to ignore how messy the actual world is.


----------

