# ADA compliant bathroom required for used car lot office?



## MattLilli (Aug 15, 2017)

Hello. 

Bureau Veritas is telling me that in order to receive an occupancy permit for a used car lot office, we need to have an ADA compliant bathroom within 300 feet.  The office for the business is only used to securely store keys and paperwork.  In fact, no paperwork is being completed at the actual business.  ALL paperwork is to be completed at the local public notary.  Customers show up, test drive a car, and if they want to buy it....meet at the local notary.  Do we really need an ADA bathroom?  Is there any way around this? This is in Pennsylvania.

Thank you.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 15, 2017)

Where oh where are employees to go? A tree, ditch, pail? How big is the office (consider replacing it with a container?)


----------



## MattLilli (Aug 15, 2017)

It is a sole proprietor with no employees and a private non ADA compliant bathroom 30 feet away.  The office is 12 x 16.  There is not a used car dealer office within 100 miles that has an ada compliant bathroom.  Most have no bathroom at all.  The state requires a permanent building with a phone and a filing cabinet.   I am told this bathroom requirement is new and I was hoping someone would have some expertise on it.


----------



## fatboy (Aug 15, 2017)

And if the customer that shows up to test drive, has the urge, uncontrollably?

And FYI, this is a forum that discusses code requirements, typically not how to circumvent them.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2017)

If it is the place of business.
You shall provide restroom facilities for the public and employees
If you provide restroom facilities for the public you shall provide accessible restroom facilities.per code.
Could be an accessible porta potty and handwashing station.


----------



## conarb (Aug 16, 2017)

mark handler said:


> If it is the place of business.
> You shall provide restroom facilities for the public and employees
> If you provide restroom facilities for the public you shall provide accessible restroom facilities.per code.
> Could be an accessible porta potty and handwashing station.


What?  I see all kinds of businesses without public restrooms, even signs on the doors in restaurants, I thought it was occupant load that determined the need for public restrooms, has that changed?


----------



## tmurray (Aug 16, 2017)

conarb said:


> What?  I see all kinds of businesses without public restrooms, even signs on the doors in restaurants, I thought it was occupant load that determined the need for public restrooms, has that changed?


Sounds like you're mixing two requirements, the number of water closets is to be sized on the total occupant load of the building. If the owner gives access to the public would be governed by health codes or their own decision where there are no laws requiring access.

I can't force an owner to make their washrooms accessible to the public. I can't even make sure the design provides them that option. All I can do is make sure there are the proper number of fixtures and that barrier free access is provided.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 16, 2017)

tmurray said:


> Sounds like you're mixing two requirements, the number of water closets is to be sized on the total occupant load of the building. If the owner gives access to the public would be governed by health codes or their own decision where there are no laws requiring access.
> 
> I can't force an owner to make their washrooms accessible to the public. I can't even make sure the design provides them that option. All I can do is make sure there are the proper number of fixtures and that barrier free access is provided.


It Is in the code. By your reasoning you cannot enforce any of the code provisions.
*
For those Non CA users*
International Plumbing Code 
*403.3 Required public toilet facilities.
Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization*

The IBC also says (IBC 2902.6) *"Customers, patrons, and visitors..."*

*IBC 1109.2* Toilet and Bathing Facilities
Each toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible.

For those in CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
422.4 Toilet Facilities Serving Employees and Customers.
Each building or structure shall be provided with toilet facilities for employees *and customers.*


----------



## tmurray (Aug 16, 2017)

In our regulatory framework, building codes generally regulate the construction of the buildings, not the day-to-day use, unless it is a change in occupancy. Our fire code and health regulation regulate day-to-day use of buildings. I make sure that all the plumbing fixture are provided based on the total occupant load of the building or suite, but if the owner chooses not to make them available to customers, I can't do anything about it because they were provided as required by code. They simply aren't accessible to the public. Now, the health inspector might be able to do something about it in certain occupancies (restaurants).

I find it strange that your building inspection departments would involve themselves in non-construction issues related to if a customer is allowed to use the washroom of a business or not.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 16, 2017)

tmurray said:


> I find it strange that your building inspection departments would involve themselves in non-construction issues related to if a customer is allowed to use the washroom of a business or not.


We do get involved if there is a compliant or is there is a new business application.
We do not know the backstory of the Original post  or poster......


----------



## MattLilli (Aug 16, 2017)

Thank you Mark Handler for actually providing me information regarding code and a reasonable solution.  The portapot is a good idea and a fair compromise.  

Thank you to the first two posters for answering the question that was not asked: "can anyone think of a situation where a bathroom at a used car office would come in handy".   Also, fatboy, if you are the administrator of the this site, I would think you would be capable of providing information rather than trying to be cute and then criticizing someone's possible intent behind their question.  You probably loved requiring people to have r38 attic doors until it was accepted to be stupid requiring an interior door to be more insulated than the exterior ones.  I think you need to re-read the welcome message.  I would have been happy to make a contribution to the site or upgrade my account based on the amount of money and aggravation Mark's suggestion may save me, but not if you are the administrator.  no thank you.


----------



## conarb (Aug 16, 2017)

Mark Handler said:
			
		

> For those in CALIFORNIA
> CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
> 422.4 Toilet Facilities Serving Employees and Customers.
> Each building or structure shall be provided with toilet facilities for employees and customers.



When did that come into the codes?  I can show you all kinds of businesses in major cities with signs on the doors: "No Public Restrooms".

Having prostate/kidney problems I can't ride our BART trains, the restrooms are always placarded "Out of Service", I asked a station agent once and she said they keep them out of service because people shoot up heroin in them.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 16, 2017)

Matt, you need to understand that many responders to your comments are not AHJ's or designers, some are frustrated, grumpy oldtimers who remember back when codes and laws were minimal. Interpretation is the name of the game but that requires a clear understanding of the "specific facts" related to a project. It is often necessary to "read" between the lines to arrive at the resolution of an issue.

Welcome to our "band".


----------



## conarb (Aug 16, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> Matt, you need to understand that many responders to your comments are not AHJ's or designers, some are frustrated, grumpy oldtimers who remember back when codes and laws were minimal. Interpretation is the name of the game but that requires a clear understanding of the "specific facts" related to a project. It is often necessary to "read" between the lines to arrive at the resolution of an issue.
> 
> Welcome to our "band".


I'm just asking when the change happened?  Are older business grandfathered in? Shouldn't businesses know?  What about a major government utility like BART?


----------



## tmurray (Aug 16, 2017)

It might just be a change in interpretation. The word "provided" can be read two ways. The way I interpret it is that the proper number of fixture must be provided based on the total occupancy load. An owner cannot make a decision at the planning stage to limit washrooms to staff only and thus reduce the number of fixtures required. Mark's interpretation indicates that the fixtures must be provided on a continuing basis and that owners must provide access to customers.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 16, 2017)

In Illinois we can't adopt the IPC.  Our Plumbing Code (thankfully) doesn't require restrooms (with limited exceptions - verifiable medical need gets you in an employees-only RR, all eat-in food service establishments and motor fuel stations with attendants, or if the bldg. is bigger than 5000 sf and OL is >100).  For every other kind of business, public restrooms are optional.

Does PA have a statewide plumbing or ADA code?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 16, 2017)

MattLilli said:


> Thank you Mark Handler for actually providing me information regarding code and a reasonable solution.  The portapot is a good idea and a fair compromise.
> .


*Make sure it is an accessible unit, by the way, some planning divisions will not allow it, check with AHJ*


----------



## mark handler (Aug 16, 2017)

tmurray said:


> Mark's interpretation indicates that the fixtures must be provided on a continuing basis and that owners must provide access to customers.


Not an interpretation; quotes from code, black and white code states it.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 16, 2017)

MattLilli said:


> Thank you Mark Handler for actually providing me information regarding code and a reasonable solution.  The portapot is a good idea and a fair compromise.
> 
> Thank you to the first two posters for answering the question that was not asked: "can anyone think of a situation where a bathroom at a used car office would come in handy".   Also, fatboy, if you are the administrator of the this site, I would think you would be capable of providing information rather than trying to be cute and then criticizing someone's possible intent behind their question.  You probably loved requiring people to have r38 attic doors until it was accepted to be stupid requiring an interior door to be more insulated than the exterior ones.  I think you need to re-read the welcome message.  I would have been happy to make a contribution to the site or upgrade my account based on the amount of money and aggravation Mark's suggestion may save me, but not if you are the administrator.  no thank you.



The job we do as AHJ is not about liking or disliking enforcing things. There are things I agree with in the codes and things I don't. But I don't get to exercise my opinion as a civil servant. What can be a challenge for us is when we speak with someone who shows disregard for the system of laws that we are responsible for enforcing. statements like "Is there any way around this? " indicates to me that you lack the necessary respect for the laws and codes enacted by our society and I am not able to trust you. If your questions had been worded differently, like "are there some easy compliance options available" you would have likely seen more constructive comments. You will notice that Mark's response was not a way around the requirement.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 16, 2017)

mark handler said:


> Not an interpretation; quotes from code, black and white code states it.



Wouldn't fly here. This would be a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as unreasonable search and seizure. We don't have legislated authority to perform inspections after construction unless there is unpermitted construction or a change of use taking place.


----------



## conarb (Aug 16, 2017)

mark handler said:


> Not an interpretation; quotes from code, black and white code states it.


If that's the case we need a law notifying all business when major changes like this go into effect, we have businesses all over the place with no public restrooms, again I ask: When did the code change to require this?  Specifically CPC 422.4 and IPC 403.3?  And again, were existing businesses grandfathered when CPC 422.4 and IPC 403.3 went into effect?


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 16, 2017)

Isn't that why you have Code Enforcement Officers for complaints and in some cities to monitor completed buildings?


----------



## conarb (Aug 16, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> Isn't that why you have Code Enforcement Officers for complaints and in some cities to monitor completed buildings?


That is such a major change why haven't we heard about it here?  Do inspectors know about it?


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 17, 2017)

Oh yes, AHJ's in CA know of this and in some cities it is a major source of revenue. other cities frown on it for political reasons.
Code Enforcement can field calls on permitted work, work being performed without a permit or neusence abatement.
Can't respond to ADA complaints but can enforce non-code compliant permit work.


----------



## conarb (Aug 17, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> Oh yes, AHJ's in CA know of this and in some cities it is a major source of revenue. other cities frown on it for political reasons.
> Code Enforcement can field calls on permitted work, work being performed without a permit or neusence abatement.
> Can't respond to ADA complaints but can enforce non-code compliant permit work.


When did it go into effect?  As I recall there was an occupant threshold that triggered the public restroom requirement, which code cycle eliminated that?


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 17, 2017)

MattLilli said:


> Hello.
> 
> Bureau Veritas is telling me that in order to receive an occupancy permit for a used car lot office, we need to have an ADA compliant bathroom within 300 feet.  The office for the business is only used to securely store keys and paperwork.  In fact, no paperwork is being completed at the actual business.  ALL paperwork is to be completed at the local public notary.  Customers show up, test drive a car, and if they want to buy it....meet at the local notary.  Do we really need an ADA bathroom?  Is there any way around this? This is in Pennsylvania.
> 
> Thank you.


Would a non-occupiable kiosk for storing the keys still trigger this requirement?  Where do the dealer's employees work when they aren't meeting customers for test drives?


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 17, 2017)

Or a cargo van? both are non-occupiable. Future possibility of hiring a disabled salesman who could make an EEOC request for reasonable accommodation.


----------



## linnrg (Aug 23, 2017)

CONARB
way back in 1976 under the old UBC world it did say under each category what the number of fixtures were (sometimes!).  For example an A Division I (Section 605, assembly over 1000, you had to have "at least one lavatory for each two water closets for each sex, and at least one drinking fountain for each floor level".  But it did not say how many water closets were required in that category!  The B category contained many divisions.  And here is what  some of the language was for toilets: "Every building or portion thereof where persons are employed shall be provided with at least one water closet"  Separate facilities shall be provided for each sex where the number of employees exceed four and both sexes are employed.  Such facilities shall be located either in such building or conveniently located in a building adjacent thereto on the same property".

Somewhere the UBC introduced the appendix section and in 1997 there was chapter 29 (which had the similar language about separate sexes) and had table 29-A which gave the number of water closets, lavs, etc by occupancy and occupant load.

The argument regarding when did you have to start making them available to the public - well probably around the time of the original ADA I would guess.  Maybe (jokingly) you remember when the argument was for separate sexes!

Older Uniform plumbing codes had language for M and B occupancy's that used the language of "serving customers" and "requirements for customers and employees".  The IPC is not that old (around 2000 maybe 1999) and most of its language was similar to UPC.


----------



## conarb (Aug 23, 2017)

linnrg said:


> CONARB
> The argument regarding when did you have to start making them available to the public - well probably around the time of the original ADA I would guess.  Maybe (jokingly) you remember when the argument was for separate sexes!



Thanks Linnrg, that is how I remember it, and that's also how the majority of buildings today were built.  I guess I'm getting old and remember when there were only two sexes, I remember in about 1969 and boys were starting to let their hair grow out long, I asked my 12 year-old son how we were going to be able to tell the difference between boys and girls?  He said: "Easy dad, girls have bumps on their chests".  Apparently it isn't that easy anymore.


----------



## linnrg (Aug 23, 2017)

yep - its changing every three years!


----------



## conarb (Aug 23, 2017)

linnrg said:


> yep - its changing every three years!


Codes, sexes, or both?


----------



## JBI (Aug 24, 2017)

Facilities are required, and are required to comply with both the Code and ADA.
The ADA is a US Law, so not applicable north of the border, hence the different rules for tmurray. 
Within the US all states must address the federal mandates within the ADA of face possible action by the Dept of Justice, same would be true for a business in the US. 
If the OP would prefer a federal lawsuit to simple compliance with a lawfully adopted regulation, then OP should open without any approvals whatsoever and see where that goes. 
I agree that the OP took a confrontational approach to the situation, as is often the case with newbies here. 
The Authority Having Jurisdiction is charged with enforcing the Codes and an applicant is normally offered an opportunity to appeal a determination. That process is spelled out in either State or Local Law. If the OP wishes wishes to do less than the Code requires then the OP should ask the AHJ what the appeal process is. 
I have seen the storage shed set-ups for used car lots. I think it's a poorly contrived way to avoid some Code requirements, but am not completely familiar with PA Law and regulation so I don't question it. 
Perhaps Jeff can weigh in on this as PA is his home state?


----------



## steveray (Aug 24, 2017)

"Unpermitted construction" would be not allowing access to a required fixture here....You can put up all the signs you want, but if I enter a building and have to go, I am going somewhere and the employees can decide if it is the bathroom or floor....


----------



## conarb (Aug 24, 2017)

JBI said:
			
		

> Within the US all states must address the federal mandates within the ADA of face possible action by the Dept of Justice, same would be true for a business in the US.



There is a huge debate about this, especially here in California where some cities have declared themselves sanctuaries where Federal law doesn't apply, there is even a proposal to make the entire state a sanctuary for those who violate Federal law.  

Over the years, in the discussions we have had here, it's always been the position of most inspectors that they don't enforce federal law, with the huge percentage of construction workers being illegal using local inspectors to enforce Federal immigration law would be a huge benefit to the Federal Government.


----------



## JBI (Aug 24, 2017)

conarb, I did not suggest that AHJ's should (or even could) enforce a Federal Law that they are not authorized to enforce. What I said was that States and Jurisdictions needed to address the Federal mandates in the ADA. That is, they must adopt regulations consistent with the requirements of the ADA to facilitate compliance within their jurisdiction. The DOJ is the enforcement authority for ADA and always has been. 
By adopting Chapter 11 of the IBC and the ICC/ANSI Standard, jurisdictions are staying compliant with the federal mandate and helping businesses to comply with the ADA for new and altered buildings. 
If individual States or jurisdictions choose to ignore the law they run the risk of DOJ enforcement actions, that's their choice.


----------



## steveray (Aug 24, 2017)

Conarb,

MOST codes are not retroactive, so the requirements would only kick in when they remodel...


----------



## conarb (Aug 24, 2017)

JBI:

DOJ enforcement is political, does anyone here actually know of a case where the DOJ, Republican or Democrat, has enforced ADA laws?


----------



## conarb (Aug 24, 2017)

steveray said:


> Conarb,
> 
> MOST codes are not retroactive, so the requirements would only kick in when they remodel...


As they should be, so let's ban people from trying to enforce them retroactively.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 24, 2017)

We do a business occupancy inspection in order to get a business license.
No sanitary facilities no occupany


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 24, 2017)

Yahoo! I have finally been heard.

Congratulations MH, if more cities would do this the issue of compliance would "eventually" be met.


----------



## linnrg (Aug 24, 2017)

mark handler said:


> We do a business occupancy inspection in order to get a business license.
> No sanitary facilities no occupany



does that include ADA, what happens if other code violations are found like say no grease trap, safety glazing, etc.?


----------



## north star (Aug 24, 2017)

*@ = @ = @*



> *" DOJ enforcement is political, does anyone here actually know of*
> *a case where the DOJ, Republican or Democrat, has enforced ADA laws? "*


conarb,
Do you know of anything that is NOT political ?

*@ = @ = @*


----------



## mark handler (Aug 24, 2017)

linnrg said:


> does that include ADA, what happens if other code violations are found like say no grease trap, safety glazing, etc.?


New occupancy?
Existing with new owner?
depends


----------



## conarb (Aug 24, 2017)

mark handler said:


> We do a business occupancy inspection in order to get a business license.
> No sanitary facilities no occupany


So, we've developed a workaround to implement the Marxist agenda of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  One has to wonder if this "business occupancy inspection" was the work of Mark Handler or was in place prior to his take over?


----------



## fatboy (Aug 24, 2017)

conarb said:


> So, we've developed a workaround to implement the Marxist agenda of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  One has to wonder if this "business occupancy inspection" was the work of Mark Handler or was in place prior to his take over?



I really doubt that MH had anything to do with the policy put in place, merely doing his job, as he was hired to do. Such things come from up above..........typically........


----------



## conarb (Aug 24, 2017)

fatboy said:


> I really doubt that MH had anything to do with the policy put in place, merely doing his job, as he was hired to do. Such things come from up above..........typically........



Fatboy:

Could be as I said I was speculating, I've never heard of a "building occupancy inspection" and MH appears to be overly consumed with disability enforcement, why?


----------



## tmurray (Aug 25, 2017)

Sometimes it's just something that someone knows a lot about. Simply filling a void in the industry. I don't know Mark's personal feelings on accessibility requirements. He's not discussed them that I can remember. He simply is knowledgeable about the laws.


----------



## conarb (Aug 25, 2017)

tmurray said:


> Sometimes it's just something that someone knows a lot about. Simply filling a void in the industry. I don't know Mark's personal feelings on accessibility requirements. He's not discussed them that I can remember. He simply is knowledgeable about the laws.


Come on T Murray, you know better then that, I agree with your approach, apply it to new construction, it doesn't cost any more to lower the mirrors, or very much more to widen the doors, but to inflict serious costs on unsuspecting business owners and taxpayers is ridiculous, even my handicapped friends don't want anything to do with it because of all the "pushback" it causes.  He has long championed the Orwellian language of the disabled activists, there is no reason for that.  

We now have enormous Codes and Standards that have pushed costs up exponentially, and we talk about disability all the time, a fractional element of codes.  Here in the Bay Area we are having more extremism anticipated starting tomorrow, one has to wonder why these people don't "get a life" and ignore all these extremist causes, left and right, disability laws are solidly in the left camp, and as such are political impositions on others under color of law, start doing this and people fight back, it's a normal human reaction to unwanted impositions.  This entire thread is an example, some guy wants to open a small used car lot, society is going to impose huge costs on him to include a bathroom that may never be used.


----------



## fatboy (Aug 25, 2017)

"This entire thread is an example, some guy wants to open a small used car lot, society is going to impose huge costs on him to include a bathroom that may never be used."

Yes..........it will get used, if it's there, it will get used, even the porti-potty. 

It is part of the cost of doing business. I grow tired of that excuse every time someone wants a hall pass on a code requirement.

And to the OP (that has not been back since he started the thread)...............

No, I try hard to work with folks, just give me something to hang my hat on, but I will not disregard a code requirement because "I can't afford it".


----------



## conarb (Aug 25, 2017)

Fatboy said:
			
		

> "This entire thread is an example, some guy wants to open a small used car lot, society is going to impose huge costs on him to include a bathroom that may never be used."
> 
> Yes..........it will get used, if it's there, it will get used, even the porti-potty.



A simple bathroom requirement has now morphed into a fully ADA compliant bathroom.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 25, 2017)

Code is all about things that may never get used though. When I require a fire separation, I really hope that I caused them cost for absolutely no reason. I hope that fire separation never has to protect life or property. I hope it was a complete and total waste of money.

Fatboy, I like to say "give me a reason to approve it"


----------



## steveray (Aug 25, 2017)

conarb said:


> A simple bathroom requirement has now morphed into a fully ADA compliant bathroom.



The handicap expenditures will pale in comparison to what the min. $1500 a fixture for the plumber are...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 25, 2017)

[P] 2902.3.2 Location of toilet facilities in occupancies other than malls.
In occupancies other than covered and open mall buildings, the required public and employee toilet facilities shall be located not more than one story above or below the space required to be provided with toilet facilities, and the path of travel to such facilities shall not exceed a distance of 500 feet (152 m).

Is there an adjacent building within 500 ft that will allow the use of its existing facilities.

We have used this approach twice when placing a drive up coffee kiosk on a parcel. We require a notarized "lease" detailing the use and hours available.
Kiosk has no restrooms within the building. Similar to a gas station attendant in a kiosk located in a grocery store parking lot.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 25, 2017)

Conarb loves to Wa-Wa. Is it time to retire or does Wa-Waing help to jump start you every morning?
Let us hope you never need to empty you colonostmy bag, take water pills or use a mobility device in the time you have remaining.
Kudos to Mark for "understanding" the need to enforce laws and codes he did not write.
As a % of total cost, access is a minimal and required cost. Most with disabilities have to live with them a lifetime and appreciate every accommodation the law requires.
There money is just as green as yours.


----------



## conarb (Aug 25, 2017)

When you have tyrannical laws it's time for open rebellion, laws have to be reasonable, Mountain Man's approach is reasonable, MH's "go by the letter of the law" is not reasonable.


----------



## ICE (Aug 27, 2017)

conarb said:


> A simple bathroom requirement has now morphed into a fully ADA compliant bathroom.



Other than physical size there's not a difference between a "simple" bathroom and a "fully ADA compliant bathroom".  ..... So


----------



## ICE (Aug 27, 2017)

MattLilli said:


> Thank you Mark Handler for actually providing me information regarding code and a reasonable solution.  The portapot is a good idea and a fair compromise.
> 
> Thank you to the first two posters for answering the question that was not asked: "can anyone think of a situation where a bathroom at a used car office would come in handy".   Also, fatboy, if you are the administrator of the this site, I would think you would be capable of providing information rather than trying to be cute and then criticizing someone's possible intent behind their question.  You probably loved requiring people to have r38 attic doors until it was accepted to be stupid requiring an interior door to be more insulated than the exterior ones.  I think you need to re-read the welcome message.  I would have been happy to make a contribution to the site or upgrade my account based on the amount of money and aggravation Mark's suggestion may save me, but not if you are the administrator.  no thank you.



I've seen what fatboy looks like and cute is not it.  Myself, brudgers and you are the only people that have insulted fatboy.  That's a pair of assholes and you.


----------



## conarb (Aug 27, 2017)

ICE said:


> Other than physical size there's not a difference between a "simple" bathroom and a "fully ADA compliant bathroom".  ..... So



Size is usually the problem, including here with the used car lot, I'm sure I've told this story before but I built a dentist/s office  in the 70s, since it was near a retirement community he specifically had the architect design it for handicapped people, all parking spaces in the lot were 8' wide (he was also a car collector and hated people opening car doors into other cars), the ramp up to the front door was 8' wide and there was no threshold to go over, when it came to the restrooms he had one large room with the lav in an outside vestibule.  

When he decided to retire he did as most dentists and doctors do, he made a deal to sell his practice to a young dentist, rent him the office, and bring him in a year early to train him and pass the practice on to another generation, it's common for each dentist to have two or even three operatories so they can work on two to three patients at a time, he had three operatories and bringing in a second dentist would require at least one more operatory.

He called me in to reconfigure the space to get another operatory, that way he'd have two for each dentist.  I explained that one of the ways we create more space is to eliminate one restroom and create a unisex restroom, we couldn't do that in his case since he only had one and the that restroom would have to remain large so that it would have to have the proper wheelchair turning radius.  

In the end he called saying that he had decided to do nothing and sell his practice without training the young dentist, he had property in the mountains and was retiring there, he refused to live and work in a society that had become this tyrannical.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 27, 2017)

Love it, 47 years ago you voluntairily did a good thing based on a business decision by the owner; now because of a business decision he takes the high road and sells it as  is to let someone else deal with the issue.


----------



## conarb (Aug 27, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> Love it, 47 years ago you voluntairily did a good thing based on a business decision by the owner; now because of a business decision he takes the high road and sells it as  is to let someone else deal with the issue.


Not really, it just remains a one dentist three operatory office with the wheelchair radius 2" shy of compliance.  Because of his location there are lots of wheelchair-bound patients, none have ever complained.  There is a big difference between doing something that you want to do and something that the government forces you to do.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 28, 2017)

If so many people are being oppressed, surely you could have the law changed. You do live in a democracy after all...


----------



## mark handler (Aug 28, 2017)

tmurray said:


> If so many people are being oppressed, surely you could have the law changed. You do live in a democracy after all...


Oppressed is a strong word.
The code and Laws intent is/was to make buildings accessible to all citizens.
The cost are minimal in new construction but create hardships in existing  buildings. There are remedies in the code which most naysayers seem to overlook or intentionally minimize to press their point that it is imposed requirement to provide basic civil rights to people with disabilities.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 28, 2017)

The voice of reason and logic speaks!

The law allows for "reasonable" accommodations, at minimal costs (subject to: justifiable ability to pay (most can't/ don't want to reveal their ability to do so ( fear of invasion of privacy or money laundering by their business?)) .


----------



## tmurray (Aug 28, 2017)

mark handler said:


> Oppressed is a strong word.
> The code and Laws intent is/was to make buildings accessible to all citizens.
> The cost are minimal in new construction but create hardships in existing  buildings. There are remedies in the code which most naysayers seem to overlook or intentionally minimize to press their point that it is imposed requirement to provide basic civil rights to people with disabilities.


Agreed, and while I don't find it appropriate to force someone to undertake renovations on a building that was constructed before the law came into effect, it remains the law and must be complied with.


----------



## conarb (Aug 28, 2017)

tmurray said:


> If so many people are being oppressed, surely you could have the law changed. You do live in a democracy after all...



T Murray:

You saw us elect a President who campaigned on eliminating 3/4 of our regulations and ending political correctness, you also see how much good that's done us.  We are on the verge of economic collapse, maybe you guys better build a wall to keep us out and off your entitlement programs.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 28, 2017)

The auto dealer industry is highly regulated, down to the physical requirements of your dealership. Whether you sell used cars or new, make sure your site adheres to the following:


Must have a permanent enclosed building that has a private office for the storage of files.
Must have a display area.
All outdoor display areas must be properly graded and have adequate lighting.
Must have a phone line for business purposes.
Must have a sign attached to the building or built separate that displays the dealership's name and can be seen by the public.
Your dealership must conform to all local building codes and zoning ordinances.
Business hours must be posted somewhere easily visible to the public.
Must own a certificate of occupancy that meets all standards of the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 28, 2017)

Thank you MT, isn't any different then other business's and not all dealerships have lots.
Tesla shows in buildings with no inventory but must comply with local codes and ordinances.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 28, 2017)

conarb said:


> T Murray:
> 
> You saw us elect a President who campaigned on eliminating 3/4 of our regulations and ending political correctness, you also see how much good that's done us.  We are on the verge of economic collapse, maybe you guys better build a wall to keep us out and off your entitlement programs.


I know this was intended as a joke, but :http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-announcement-asylum-seekers-1.4240038


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Dec 7, 2019)

conarb said:


> When did that come into the codes?  I can show you all kinds of businesses in major cities with signs on the doors: "No Public Restrooms".
> 
> Having prostate/kidney problems I can't ride our BART trains, the restrooms are always placarded "Out of Service", I asked a station agent once and she said they keep them out of service because people shoot up heroin in them.



Interesting because I grew up in Bay Point - at the end of the Bart Train line.  Hence the moniker BayPointArchitect.  Fortunately I was not familiar with heroin or meth back then.


----------

