# Airplane Hanger Condo Accessibility(?)



## Glennman CBO (Feb 2, 2011)

We have a submittal to install a restroom in an airplane hanger that is accessed only by the owner. It is not accessible to the public, but it is in a "commercially zoned" area near the local airport.

Apparently, the people buy the hanger similar to a "condo". It is only accessed by them. They want a restroom so that they can use it while visiting their plane (never feel sorry for a man that owns a plane).

You guessed it. The plans do not have any accessible elements in it (shower, sink, toilet).

Does this restroom need to be accessible? There is quite a stir about it in the office today. Some say yes, some no.

What do all you good code geeks say?


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 2, 2011)

Not fully accessible if per 1109.2.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 2, 2011)

That's the direction I'd be taking.


----------



## Frank (Feb 2, 2011)

Agree can be adaptable per 1109.2 exception 1.  Need to provide the clear spaces and grab gar reinforcement but dont have to install accessible fixtures or grab bars at this time.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 2, 2011)

Glenman - ask the question this way:

A guy comes in with plans for a small storage warehouse in a commercial zone.  He says it is for his private storage.  He has no employees, and is conducting no public business.  Accessible toilet?

Out here is California, I would still say "yes, the accessibility code is applicable".  If he could turn around and sell the warehouse to someone else someday, and if your zonig code would allow commercial activity there (an employee fetches the airplane) then you are subject to commercial codes.

If the guy is that keen on having an inaccesible bathroom, he can set down a porta potti in a closet.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 2, 2011)

Yes, it has to be accessible unless it can meet the exception as a "private office" bathroom.

Be prepared to provide enough information to make someone real warm and fuzzy about it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 2, 2011)

Allow the restroom and go back in a year. You may find a full wet bar, refrigerator, big screen tv, poker table and a couple of couches and lounge chairs to watch the big game on. Don't forget to look for the propane BBQ grill in the corner.

Just my experience.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 2, 2011)

"If the guy is that keen on having an inaccesible bathroom, he can set down a porta potti in a closet."

How about a desk in the hanger? Large office.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 2, 2011)

I suppose he could start a night club there too, complete with drinks, dancing girls, and maybe even an asprin factory on the opposite side of the hanger.

I don't think it is our place to forsee what "could" be done with it.

He could add the "wet bar and barbeque" even if the restroom was accessible.

I could own a home that is existing non conforming in a commercial zone, but I wouldn't be requiured to install an accessible restroom in it. Someone could buy it, and turn it into an office for a business. Any code issues would be dealt with _at that time_, and it would be the new owner's responsibility to inform us of the changes.

As far as this scenerio goes, I can see no specific exception to it being accessible. But, I can understand why someone would think it wouldn't need to be.

Also, the so called "exception" (private office) is not really an exception at all. You still need all the room sizes, toilet distance from the wall, etc. You just need to be able to reverse the door, and install a taller toilet, and add the grab bars, etc. We get that all the time. People think you can build a smaller restroom if it is accessed through a private office.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2011)

Not a dwelling or a private club - probably needs to meet ADAAG.


----------



## conarb (Feb 3, 2011)

Since when do local jurisdictions enforce ADAAG?  I thought only California enforced their state version since they have codified it. Have other states codified it?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

conarb,

Florida adopts the ADAAG, Iowa adopts the ADAAG and Ohio adopts the ADAAG.  California adopts its own accessibility code not base don anything else but using pieces from the IBC.  Illinois adopts its own code that is loosely based on the ADAAG.  Brudger's comment is about the fact that whatever the local codes say, the federal ADAAG still needs to be applied.  That being said, 4.1.3(11) of the old ADAAG has the same "private office" clause in it that is being referenced.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 3, 2011)

My point was a private airplane hanger is usually used for more than parking an airplane thus restroom should be fully accessible.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 3, 2011)

I guess it comes down to what "private ownership" means.

It doesn't mean anything anymore. If it's not an IRC structure, then it's not private(?)

The plans examiner already informed the guy to submit new plans.

Thanks all.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2011)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> conarb,Florida adopts the ADAAG, Iowa adopts the ADAAG and Ohio adopts the ADAAG.  California adopts its own accessibility code not base don anything else but using pieces from the IBC.  Illinois adopts its own code that is loosely based on the ADAAG.  Brudger's comment is about the fact that whatever the local codes say, the federal ADAAG still needs to be applied.  That being said, 4.1.3(11) of the old ADAAG has the same "private office" clause in it that is being referenced.


Good luck convincing a Federal Judge to throw out the suit based on the idea that "private office" really means "airplane hanger."


----------



## mark handler (Feb 3, 2011)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> California adopts its own accessibility code not base don anything else but using pieces from the IBC.


Not true the *CA accessibility codes Predate *"The IBC" and the ADAAG

A brief history of access laws in CA

1968 – Government Code 4450  Covered publicly funded bldgs, sidewalks, curbs, etc

1961 ASA A117.1 – in effect until 1982

1968 – G.C. 4452 Made access codes minimum standards

1968 – Civil Code 51 – Unruh Act Made denial of access a civil rights violation Specified access needs to be provided in a manner applicable alike to all persons.

1970 – Health & Safety Code 19955 Privately funded facilities included

1973 – H & S 19959 & G.C. 4456 Alterations to existing buildings

1980 – H & S 19957 Made exceptions more regulated, less leeway for Building Official. 19957.5 established accessibility appeals board.

1978 Public Resources Code 5070 Recreational facilities, trails, bikeways, boat docks, playground equip., etc

1982 CCR – T-24  1st put access into building code

1991 UBC Chapter 31 Gov’t. Code 4450 – 4459 Purpose to ensure that all buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs and facilities are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Not true the *CA accessibility codes Predate *"The IBC" and the ADAAG


Easy on the ego, Mark.

The current California regulations have incorporated into them the accessible means of egress provisions and a number of the occupancy specific requirements that are in the IBC.  Nobody is challenging the length of time that California has had some type of accessibility rules in place.  My point is that it is its own document but has made changes in the past few years to incorporate provisions that align with the federal ADA as part of the state's certification effort.  In doing so a number of items have been dropped in from the IBC and some have simply been changes made to the existing text to comply with the federal requirements.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Good luck convincing a Federal Judge to throw out the suit based on the idea that "private office" really means "airplane hanger."


Who knows what a federal judge will do, Ben?

Hence my earlier comment to be prepared to make someone feel all warm and fuzzy when you ask for that interpretation.  Personally, I think it's a stretch but its the only game option available.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 3, 2011)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> The current California regulations have incorporated into them the accessible means of egress provisions and a number of the occupancy specific requirements that are in the IBC.


 The issue I have is you keep saying "IBC". CA is making it's code closer to the ADAAG, not the "IBC".  It's provisions are not based on the "IBC".


----------



## texas transplant (Feb 3, 2011)

The restroom and all other elements should be accessible in my opinion.  The hanger doesn't meet the exception.

I also agree with brudgers.   This is first hand experience.  Small public airport here, has same "condo" like hangers.   Built 5 years ago, state did the accessiblity review, approved the plans with only a small private (non-accessible) bath w/shower in the units that wanted restrooms.   2 years ago based on a complaint, DOJ came in and inspected the units.  DOJ said has to be accessible.  They are jack hammering concrete today to make the changes.

Even if you make the determination in your jurisdiction that code doesn't require accessibility, you might want to "advise" owner or design professional to take a look at things outside of what you enforce.   It is good public relations to tell them that, and when the DOJ has them making changes later on, you can be in the "I told you so columum when they are looking for where to place the blame.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

Mark, the 2010 Standards require the accessible means of egress to be based on the IBC.  There is no other way to get that into the CA text besides using the requirements from the IBC.  The new federal standards are based on the ICC/ANSI A117.1 (as referenced in the IBC) so there is text - either directly or indirectly - that comes from the IBC; albeit quite limited.

Why do you hate the IBC so much?  Did you help write the CA regulations?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

texas transplant said:
			
		

> The restroom and all other elements should be accessible in my opinion. The hanger doesn't meet the exception.I also agree with brudgers. This is first hand experience. Small public airport here, has same "condo" like hangers. Built 5 years ago, state did the accessiblity review, approved the plans with only a small private (non-accessible) bath w/shower in the units that wanted restrooms. 2 years ago based on a complaint, DOJ came in and inspected the units. DOJ said has to be accessible. They are jack hammering concrete today to make the changes.
> 
> Even if you make the determination in your jurisdiction that code doesn't require accessibility, you might want to "advise" owner or design professional to take a look at things outside of what you enforce. It is good public relations to tell them that, and when the DOJ has them making changes later on, you can be in the "I told you so columum when they are looking for where to place the blame.


There's a difference between making it non-accessible and treating it as a private toilet room.  There's no jack hammering that would be required since the configuration would require placement so that such extensive alteration isn't required.

btw: doesn't Texas have a "Certified" accessibility code?  Didn't that help them at all or is the RAS now looking for other work?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2011)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Who knows what a federal judge will do, Ben?Hence my earlier comment to be prepared to make someone feel all warm and fuzzy when you ask for that interpretation.  Personally, I think it's a stretch but its the only game option available.


Sorry Gene, but bad ideas don't deserve equal time. Particularly when those bad ideas are an attempt to violate civil rights law.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 3, 2011)

Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> I guess it comes down to what "private ownership" means.


Glennman, I would suspect the _ownership_ of the building is irrelevant.  "Private _use_" vs. "public _use_" is probably more important.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 3, 2011)

Yes ownership of the building is irrelevant


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

The "private" office issue does not depend on Worthy the ownership is public or private.  You can have a private office in publicly owned building.

If it was me I'd either make all the toilet rooms fully accessible or else tell everyone that there are no toilet rooms to be installed.


----------



## conarb (Feb 3, 2011)

I think it hinges more on what  "Private _use_" vs. "public _use_" means.  For instance I leased a hanger from The Port of Oakland for many years, the procedure would be that if I invited people to go flying for business or pleasure, I'd meet them at the airport gates, use my card to allow all cars through and have the other cars follow me to the hanger.  I'd open the big heavy doors and fire up my gas powered tug and pull the airplane out, I would then direct everyone to drive their cars into the hanger, they would then climb up on one high step and board the aircraft over the left wing, as a matter of fact there would be no way to get a wheelchair up and into the airplane, and the luggage compartment would not hold a wheelchair.  There was no restroom in the hanger, but had there been one, and after pulling his or her car into the hanger, a passenger wished to use the facility before taking off, does this constitute a "public use"?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 3, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> I think it hinges more on what  "Private _use_" vs. "public _use_" means.  For instance I leased a hanger from The Port of Oakland for many years, the procedure would be that if I invited people to go flying for business or pleasure, I'd meet them at the airport gates, use my card to allow all cars through and have the other cars follow me to the hanger.  I'd open the big heavy doors and fire up my gas powered tug and pull the airplane out, I would then direct everyone to drive their cars into the hanger, they would then climb up on one high step and board the aircraft over the left wing, as a matter of fact there would be no way to get a wheelchair up and into the airplane, and the luggage compartment would not hold a wheelchair.  There was no restroom in the hanger, but had there been one, and after pulling his or her car into the hanger, a passenger wished to use the facility before taking off, does this constitute a "public use"?


In this case, private or public, it does not matter, it must be accessible. People Read the ADAAG.

And Conarb, Read the CBC


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 3, 2011)

Very good advice tex!


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> In this case, private or public, it does not matter, it must be accessible. People Read the ADAAG.And Conarb, Read the CBC


Per 4.1.3 of the current ADAAG:


(11) Toilet Facilities: If toilet rooms are

provided, then each public and common use

toilet room shall comply with 4.22. *Other toilet*

*rooms provided for the use of occupants of*

*specific spaces (i.e., a private toilet room for*

*the occupant of a private office) shall be adaptable*.

If bathing rooms are provided, then each

public and common use bathroom shall

comply with 4.23. Accessible toilet rooms and

bathing facilities shall be on an accessible
​route.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> I think it hinges more on what  "Private _use_" vs. "public _use_" means.  For instance I leased a hanger from The Port of Oakland for many years, the procedure would be that if I invited people to go flying for business or pleasure, I'd meet them at the airport gates, use my card to allow all cars through and have the other cars follow me to the hanger.  I'd open the big heavy doors and fire up my gas powered tug and pull the airplane out, I would then direct everyone to drive their cars into the hanger, they would then climb up on one high step and board the aircraft over the left wing, as a matter of fact there would be no way to get a wheelchair up and into the airplane, and the luggage compartment would not hold a wheelchair.  There was no restroom in the hanger, but had there been one, and after pulling his or her car into the hanger, a passenger wished to use the facility before taking off, does this constitute a "public use"?


Not a dwelling or private club?

Then almost certainly a place of public accommodation.

It's not about the users, it's about the building.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

I minor point but it would be a Commercial Facility - not a "Public Accommodation"

From the ADA law:

*Sec.36.104 Definitions*

Commercial facilities means facilities --

(1) Whose operations will affect commerce;

(2) That are intended for nonresidential use by a private entity; and

(3) That are not --

(i) Facilities that are covered or expressly exempted from coverage under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3601 - 3631);

(ii) Aircraft; or

(iii) Railroad locomotives, railroad freight cars, railroad cabooses, commuter or intercity passenger rail cars (including coaches, dining cars, sleeping cars, lounge cars, and food service cars), any other railroad cars described in section 242 of the Act or covered under title II of the Act, or railroad rights-of-way. For purposes of this definition, "rail'' and "railroad'' have the meaning given the term "railroad'' in section 202(e) of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 431(e)).



Place of public accommodation means a facility, operated by a private entity, whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following categories --

(1) An inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the residence of the proprietor;

(2) A restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;

(3) A motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; 

(4) An auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;

(5) A bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;

(6) A laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;

(7) A terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;

(8) A museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;

(9) A park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;

(10) A nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;

(11) A day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and

(12) A gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

A Public Accommodation is one that allows the public to walk in off the street for the business within. A private hanger is not that. That doesn't diminish the fact that it must comply with Title III as a Commercial Facility since the condo association clearly fits that category since it affects commerce and is not a private residence.

So, in a way, it IS about the users.


----------

