# Backwards



## Rick18071 (Oct 22, 2020)

The lab on the left is accessible but the mirror is too high there, but the mirror on the right is accessible (bottom is under 40").  Sinks were existing, but mirrors are new.
Does the code require the accessible mirror to be over the accessible sink? 2018 IBC


----------



## steveray (Oct 22, 2020)

Not that I am aware of although it does make sense....


----------



## mark handler (Oct 22, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> The lab on the left is accessible but the mirror is too high there, but the mirror on the right is accessible (bottom is under 40").  Sinks were existing, but mirrors are new.
> Does the code require the accessible mirror to be over the accessible sink? 2018 IBC







The code does not require a mirror
if you provide one it needs to be accessible
if someone is using the sink on the right, it is not accessible.
you have other issues, the pipes on the lavatory on the left, are not protected
the soap dispenser mounted too high, yes i know they temporarily have push bottles, how long will they be there, what happens when they are on the floor....


----------



## Paul Sweet (Oct 22, 2020)

Counting tiles, the lav on the left looks too low to be accessible; as well as, lacking insulation on the hot water & drain.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 22, 2020)

Like I said the lavs were existing so I am not looking at them. Only the mirrors are part of an alteration.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 22, 2020)

You can't "ignore" what is obvious, existing barriers must be addressed.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 23, 2020)

I am* required* per code to ignore existing elements that are not required to be changed per IEBC.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 23, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> I am* required* per code to ignore existing elements that are not required to be changed per IEBC.


Mirrors are not required.
no permit required.
why are you involved?
what is total scope of work?


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 23, 2020)

I did not require new mirrors the plans did. The permit was part of a overall upgrade of a office building which included new doors, new ceiling and lights, resurfaced parking lot, replaced HVAC systems, etc.


----------



## Gary Meerschaert (Oct 23, 2020)

Question: Is the rest of the restroom area compliant with accessibility for plumbing elements? If so, then wouldn't the sink, mirror, pipe protection and soap dispenser also have to be compliant, meaning the mirror would have to be above the sink that looks to be 34" above finished floor since they would have already met that reach requirement.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 24, 2020)

Gary gets it.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 25, 2020)

Gary Meerschaert said:


> Question: Is the rest of the restroom area compliant with accessibility for plumbing elements? If so, then wouldn't the sink, mirror, pipe protection and soap dispenser also have to be compliant, meaning the mirror would have to be above the sink that looks to be 34" above finished floor since they would have already met that reach requirement.


The new mirrors and towel dispensers are the only things that are now compliant with 2015 codes for accessibility for plumbing elements,  the rest of it complies when it was originally built (which were when no codes existed here). Like I said the sinks were existing. The IBEC Level 2 Alterations does not make you update things you are not doing anything with.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 25, 2020)

No, but ADA does; bewary of drive-by suits


----------



## mark handler (Oct 26, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> The new mirrors and towel dispensers are the only things that are now complaint with 2015 codes for accessibility for plumbing elements,  the rest of it complies when it was originally built (which were when no codes existed here). Like I said the sinks were existing. The IBEC Level 2 Alterations does not make you update things you are not doing anything with.


That will not protect the owners from a lawsuit


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 26, 2020)

so Rick, what does your client say to our response?


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 26, 2020)

mark handler said:


> That will not protect the owners from a lawsuit


Why should I care? 
This is in a township office.
 I am only allowed to enforce the State Construction Code.



ADAguy said:


> so Rick, what does your client say to our response?


I would never tell them anything from this site.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 26, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> Why should I care?
> This is in a township office.
> I am only allowed to enforce the State Construction Code.
> 
> ...


So let them hang for not complying? Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim; there is no virus so don't wear a mask (smiling).


----------



## north star (Oct 26, 2020)

*& - & - &*

...and Welcome *** Gary Meerschaert*** to
The Building Code Forum !   

*& - & - &*


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 27, 2020)

Why do you always expect me to make places comply to ADA? I have no authority to do so. I don't even know what the ADA says. If I fail an inspection for something  not in the IBC I could get fired or even lose my inspection certification. Are you trying to make me lose my job?


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 27, 2020)

Tunnel vision you have, as an inspector you need to know these things. 
Awareness is the key to being able to inform an owner even if he doesn't want to hear or plead ignorance.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 27, 2020)

I am not required to know ADA to do my job. The state sets what I need to know, not you.
I never see, know or talk to the owners. Usually the owners of a commercial job are stock holders of the company that owns another company which contracted a company that contracts with another company that hires subcontractors to build the project..


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 27, 2020)

Yes you are, even if your AG says otherwise


----------



## classicT (Oct 27, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> Yes you are, even if your AG says otherwise


Says who? Please tell me where you get this from?

The ADA is a Federal Standard administered by a Federal Agency (DOJ).

Like Rick (PA), I (WA) have no legal authority to enforce the ADA. It is not a legally appointed standard. The I-Codes are adopted and administration assigned by the state to cities by State Law. The cities in turn adopt and assign administration to the Building Department and Building Official. No where in any of this is the ADA mentioned or adopted.

Thus, I cannot and will not enforce it. If I do, I can be held liable in civil litigation. The IBC references the A117.1 Standard, which is supposed to meet the ADA. We all know it comes close, exceeding some requirements and failing to meet others. But it is what we have.

That said, owners can and are held liable for failing to comply with the ADA. The ADA which does require continued removal of barriers to accessibility.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 28, 2020)

Your last sentence is the key, owners mistakenly believe that a C of O is a warranty of ADA compliance, They need to be continously reminded that it isn't.


----------



## classicT (Oct 28, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> Your last sentence is the key, owners mistakenly believe that a C of O is a warranty of ADA compliance, They need to be continously reminded that it isn't.


I agree, but it is not a requirement for anyone in a Building Department to provide that reminder. It is the responsibility of the owner alone.

You have come after a number of us on the forum saying that we are responsible to enforce the ADA. Just a couple posts back, you even asserted this position over what a state attorney general (AG) says. Can you admit that this is false or....?



Rick18071 said:


> I am not required to know ADA to do my job. The state sets what I need to know, not you.





ADAguy said:


> Yes you are, even if your AG says otherwise


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 28, 2020)

It is the responsibility of states to insure that the minimum requirements of the ADA are implimented in their codes, rules & regs. 
ICC has not received certification of compliance nor have any state codes. The Feds have not received budget with which to do so. 
They have left to the do disabled to be ADA cops. Some states even have a bounty available as an incentive to enforce compliance.
"It depends" continues to be the rule by which courts determine compliance or not. Failure to communicate ongoing requirements is unfortunately continuing. As inspectors do you overlook existing noncompliant items that are potential hazards if they are not within a projects scope but adjacent to it?


----------



## classicT (Oct 28, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> As inspectors do you overlook existing noncompliant items that are potential hazards if they are not within a projects scope but adjacent to it?


Are they existing conditions that were accepted at time of construction, or items that were constructed illegally and missed? Each situation is going to be different. As an inspector, you have to work within what the adopted building code tells you to do.

And can you answer my question - will you recant your previous assertions that inspectors must enforce the ADA, even when told not to be the AG?


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 29, 2020)

Grey area, you are required to observe and report "code" defiencies as related to the project you are inspecting but code, unlike the ADA is not always retroactive. Depending on your jurisdiction it can be very political if you comment beyond your authority, on that I agree.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 30, 2020)

In most cases with commercial work I don't know who the owner is or have anyway to communicate with them. I could tell the contractor but it won't go to the owner.



ADAguy said:


> As inspectors do you overlook existing noncompliant items that are potential hazards if they are not within a projects scope but adjacent to it?


 I see non compliant items per code in almost every where in existing buildings that have permits and buildings that nothing is being done at all like the office I work out of.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 30, 2020)

Unfortunately perfection is an impossible standard to be held too. Too much to see and write up in the time allotted. You pick and choose subject to life safety impact or other directives from above


----------



## Rick18071 (Nov 3, 2020)

How can I be responsible for this?

The PA accessible appeals board is always letting things not complying to accessible codes and probably not complying to ADA too. For example I am inspecting an existing building now where this board is allowing them to put in a few non accessible rest rooms. I don't see any reason why the board is allowing this because the story that the construction is occurring in was just empty space before and there is plenty of room to make the restrooms accessible. 
The PA code allows this board to have this authority.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 4, 2020)

The concern I see is that you have statutory immunity for performing your jobs in the US. You have no statutory immunity as soon as you step one foot outside of that role. Advising an owner, while well intentioned, will expose you and your employer to additional liability. In order to successfully mitigate this liability, you would need to have sufficient education to be considered an expert in the eyes of a court. However, even in this case, you would still incur losses in your legal defense. 

There are countless laws regulating construction. Expecting one person to know and enforce all of them is not exactly reasonable, especially when that person has no legal authority to enforce the other laws.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 4, 2020)

tmurray said:


> The concern I see is that you have statutory immunity for performing your jobs in the US. You have no statutory immunity as soon as you step one foot outside of that role. Advising an owner, while well intentioned, will expose you and your employer to additional liability. In order to successfully mitigate this liability, you would need to have sufficient education to be considered an expert in the eyes of a court. However, even in this case, you would still incur losses in your legal defense.
> 
> There are countless laws regulating construction. Expecting one person to know and enforce all of them is not exactly reasonable, especially when that person has no legal authority to enforce the other laws.


Consider being a whistleblower to DOJ or a citizens group?


----------



## tmurray (Nov 4, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> Consider being a whistleblower to DOJ or a citizens group?


Both great options that I do all the time. You can easily pass something on to the AHJ for them to follow up.


----------



## Rick18071 (Nov 5, 2020)

The AHJ will know about it because they need to put any approved appeals on the C. O. But I won't do anything else about it and I don't think the AHJ will. When you are a private 3rd party inspection company it's best not to make any waves because there are a lot of other 3rd part inspection companies that would want to take our place and in some areas in this state where there is more than one inspection company to choose from the contractor or owner gets to choose which one they want.
Can someone sue the state accessibility appeals board that complies to state law for not compiling to the federal ADA?


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 5, 2020)

You betcha they can


----------

