# I gotta pee!



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 25, 2010)

While standing in line at the local mercantile, a young boy came in and ask'd the clerk to use the bathroom. It seemed they posted "get bathroom key from manager" on both the womans and mens bathrooms doors, like in the movie "The Jerk" where the keys attached to a car wheel, this was a little boy need'n to go! I guess they have the right to lock the bathrooms inside their store.

Is it a public bathroom or a private bathroom? It meets ADA requirements, except you can't use em!

Son, just use the floor, maybe they'll change their policy?

pc1


----------



## fatboy (Aug 25, 2010)

Depends on when it was built/finished. Yes, currently RR's are required, but what they do after the CO is issued is another story. We had a Verizon that opened and immediately started a "employees only" policy. One of my inspectors called them on it (knowing that we didn't have a lot of leverage) and they have supposedly relaxed a bit.

But yeah, having a kid go in a pee on the floor might send a message..........


----------



## mark handler (Aug 25, 2010)

Let him Pee on the floor then sue there A**

IPC 2006 Chapter 2 Definitions:

PUBLIC OR PUBLIC UTILIZATION. In the classification of plumbing fixtures, "public" applies to fixtures in general toilet rooms of schools, gymnasiums, hotels, airports, bus and railroad stations, public buildings, bars, public comfort stations, office buildings, stadiums, stores, restaurants and other installations where a number of fixtures are installed so that their utilization is similarly unrestricted.

PRIVATE. In the classification of plumbing fixtures, "private" applies to fixures in residences and apartments, and to fixtures in nonpublic toilet rooms of hotels and motels and similar installations in buildings where the plumbing fixtures are intended for utilization by a family or an individual.

"IPC 2006 - 403.4 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 accessible route to public facilities shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, closets or similar spaces. Employees shall be provided with toilet facilities in all occupancies. Employee toilet facilities shall be either separate or combined employee and public toilet facilities."


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 25, 2010)

If you come to MT don't expect to find a "public" restroom every where you go. Oh they may be a one or two holer 

 (19) Subsection 2902.4, Required Public Toilet Facilities, is deleted in its entirety. 
​


----------



## fatboy (Aug 25, 2010)

Mark, my point was, I had a complaint on a gas station that wasn't letting patrons use the facilities. When I research it, the building was buillt in the mid-60's, and the UPC at that time did not require "public" facilities, only to provide them for the employees.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 25, 2010)

Even in MT, the MT Amended, UPC still requires Mercantile and Business Occupancies to have Customer restrooms.


----------



## Dr. J (Aug 26, 2010)

> in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization.


If the business does not intent for the public to utilize it's tenant space or structure, no public toilet facilities need to be provided.



> In the classification of plumbing fixtures, "public" applies to fixtures in general toilet rooms ...where a number of fixtures are installed so that their utilization is similarly unrestricted


If a business owner locks up a toilet room, the fixtures are obviously not unrestricted.

Bottom line - if a business does not want little kids peeing in their toilet rooms they are not obligated to.  It may be poor community relations, but not a code violation.


----------



## smeismer (Aug 26, 2010)

It's wonderful that the code places requirements intended to provide public toilets that cannot be verified until after the C of O is issued ("96 IBC 2902.4) or I believe that this is this section's intent.  Once the C of o is issued, it becomes very difficult for the building code official to be the bathroom police.  It would be, I believe, difficult to justify entry into a private business for the purpose of verification without an ongoing permit (permission from the owner), and I doubt if one would have a lot of luck obtaining a search warrent for such an inspection.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2010)

Dr. J said:
			
		

> but not a code violation.


Not true. Read the code.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 26, 2010)

Mark,

I believe they meet the code but I don't like it that they control the key! Waiting for the manager to open the door is a way to prevent patrons from using the facility. I do the plan review, inspect the bathrooms while in construction, city provides water and sewer connections and the dude with the key has the power to say just a second wait til I'm done with this customer before you can use the crapper! They meet the code, they provided a bathroom for both sexes, you just got to wait on the dude with the bad acne to let you in!

Please make your case I want to be wrong!

Pc1


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2010)

"IPC 2006 - 403.4 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 accessible route to public facilities shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, closets or similar spaces. Employees shall be provided with toilet facilities in all occupancies. Employee toilet facilities shall be either separate or combined employee and public toilet facilities."


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 26, 2010)

UBC did not require toilets to be available to the public.

IBC does require toilets to be available to the public.

Nothing in the IBC prevents the toilets from being locked with the proprietor controlling the key.  This would be good risk management in many areas.

Preventing use of the toilets would be against the IBC.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 26, 2010)

Toilets are available and provided, just need a key? Does this meet the code?

Ten years from now, you'll need a combination or app on your I-phone to use the potty!

pc1


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 26, 2010)

What's the difference between having to wait to get the key or having to wait until a person in the restroom is finished?

Gas stations used to be built with restroom doors on the outside.  They had to use a key to lock the restrooms to keep vagrants from trashing them.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2010)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Toilets are available and provided, just need a key? Does this meet the code?


Yes but that is not what you originally posted


----------



## north star (Aug 26, 2010)

** * **

Pcinspector1,

Mark Handler's quote is correct [ by the "letter" of the code ]:



> "IPC 2006 - 403.4 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 accessible route to public facilities shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, closets or similar spaces. Employees shall be provided with toilet facilities in all occupancies. Employee toilet facilities shall be either separate or combined employee and public toilet facilities."


 however,there is nothing written that says customers shall "immediate access" to the restrooms.

I agree with Coug Dad that "loss prevention" has a VERY LARGE part in controlling

who is doing what in the store / space. It is virtually impossible to monitor everyone's

activities and whereabouts while ringing up sales.

If people have to go to the restroom in that big of a hurry, then they may want

to do some management of the body, so that they can find a location suitable for

their needs. That line of thought typically does not set well with potential

customers / patrons who may actually give that business owner some business [ no

pun intended ].

FWIW, we have a large regional bank that is pulling this same stuff on its

customers [ i.e. - we want your money, just not your presence  ]. On their side of

the discussion, how do you monitor everyone's activities so that overall appearance of

security of the store / facility is maintained? Would you want / allow street

transients to come in to use the facilities? By law you would "have to", but that

"might" deter other potential customers.

** * **


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2010)

Small Merchants May Run Afoul Of Rules on Restroom Access Many Shops Are Unaware Of State Codes Requiring Public Access to Facilities

July 26, 2005; Wall Street Journal

While shopping last month at a Rochester, N.H., Salvation Army thrift store, a local woman found herself unexpectedly in need of a restroom but was denied access to one because of the store's "employee only" toilet policy. Unable to make it elsewhere in time, the shopper had an accident in the store.

It might have ended as just an unfortunate incident; after all, scores of stores around the country decline to let the public use their toilets because of the costs of cleaning and monitoring such facilities. But what happened next highlights a quiet shift in public policy that affects small businesses nationwide when it comes to restroom facilities.

Police were called to the scene and the state's building inspector eventually was consulted about New Hampshire's plumbing code, which sets out requirements for buildings' toilet facilities, among other things. That brought some surprising news: According to state code, merchants of all sizes and types located in spaces

constructed since the early 1980s, or brought up to code since then, are indeed supposed to provide customers and visitors with restroom access. Violations are considered a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $1,200 fine.

"We were not aware of the law in New Hampshire," says Trish Raines, community-relations manager for the Salvation Army's Eastern territory. She says the Rochester store is now allowing the public access to its restrooms and says all new or updated thrift facilities will do the same.

As it turns out, many U.S. merchants may be unwittingly in violation of plumbing codes when it comes to letting the public use their bathrooms. A growing number of states now include language in their

codes spelling out requirements for customer restroom facilities in mercantile and other business spaces. New

Jersey's code has done so since 1983; California's does also, as well as Virginia's and Florida's. Indeed, a

majority of state legislatures, including New York's, have adopted codes with similar requirements.

"Most small businesses, I talk to them, and they have no idea about these rules," says Robert Brubaker, who heads up the public-restroom initiative for the American Restroom Association, an advocacy group pushing for the availability of clean, safe, well-designed public restrooms. His group's Web site www.americanrestroom.org1 chronicles the ins and outs of plumbing codes and experiences of customers turned away from bathrooms.

As awareness grows, however, a backlash may arise as more small businesses consider the potential costs and liabilities associated with public-restroom facilities.

"I don't think our legislatures should be worried about people being able to go to the bathroom in any location in the nation," says Matt Webb, owner of 1-800-Flowers, a retail florist shop in Tampa, Fla. With only one or two employees in his store at any given time, he says, it would be a strain to have them regularly cleaning toilets.

Plus, there are liability issues for business owners, says Andrew Langer, manager of regulatory policy for the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business advocacy group. "If someone starts shooting up heroin and the cops bust in, theoretically, you could be liable," he says. "In the end, it should not be left to the states to decide what is best for the small-business owner. It should be up to the small-business owner."

The issue of public-toilet access isn't clear-cut. For starters, states issue codes of many types, plumbing included. But while some states mandate that all of their jurisdictions adopt the state version of code, others let municipalities go their own way. Regardless, code is always enforced at the local level, where building officials vary in how they interpret a code's intention. What's more, codes have changed through the years and are not retroactive, which means different businesses in the same town may be subject to different requirements.

New York City, for instance, currently adheres to a plumbing code adopted in 1968. The 1968 city code sets out toilet-facility requirements based on general occupancy levels for public buildings, including mercantile establishments. But city officials say they do not interpret that to mean every business must let anyone use their toilet facilities.

"We look at the functionality of the business and the intent of time spent there by customers," says James P. Colgate, executive architect at the New York City Department of Buildings. A clothing store, souvenir shop, jeweler or take-out deli would not have to let a customer use their bathroom under the city's interpretation, he says, while a restaurant or Barnes & Noble with a cafe and sit

down tables would, because food and drink are served there. "No one's ever questioned me, and that's the way it's always been," he says.

However, New York City is now considering adopting a version of the state's plumbing code, which includes language clearly stating that: "Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization." If it passes, Mr. Colgate says, all merchants in spaces built to that code could have to comply, depending on how the provision is interpreted.

Most state plumbing codes are based on one of three constantly evolving models: the International Plumbing Code, or IPC; the Uniform Plumbing Code, or UPC; or the National Standard Plumbing Code, or NSPC. All three are developed by third-party associations whose members have various building and government backgrounds. While the language is slightly different, all three currently spell out requirements for merchants to have accessible bathrooms for customers in their building, or nearby.

The logic is this: "It's a safety and sanitary issue," says Lynne Simnick, who works with codes and standards development for the International Code Council, which developed the IPC. "If you intend to serve the public in some shape or form, you have to have restroom facilities for the public," Ms. Simnick adds, noting that the IPC currently is used in some form by about 22 states.

But most of the codes' evolution -- and the intent of the codes' creators -- falls under the radar of small-business owners, not to mention the general public. "Most people take for granted that they cannot use the bathrooms," says Jay Peters, senior director of codes and education for the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, which develops the UPC.

To mitigate the uncertainty, the American Restroom Association is lobbying for model codes to require signs directing the public to bathrooms inside stores. "It would solve more than half the battle," Mr. Brubaker says.

For his part, Mr. Brubaker says greater bathroom access could raise a business's sales by encouraging customers to shop longer. He also says that broader toilet access will reduce the burden on those merchants who currently offer toilets and get sent bathroom-seekers from stores who don't.

http://americanrestroom.org/np/WSJ_Bounds_Restroom_A22p.pdf


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 26, 2010)

Mark,

Thanks for the article, it appears that it's somewhat a problem through out the land.

No State building code here!

I think I'll just shut thier water off and see where the manager goes to do his business! No pun intended!


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2010)

Deleted see next post


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2010)

Some states use the

UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE (UPC) Published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials

413.2.2 Fixtures accessible only to private offices shall not be counted to determine compliance with this section. establishments with an occupant load of one hundred (100) or more shall be provided with separate facilities for employees and customers. Customer and employee facilities may be combined for occupant loads less than one hundred (100).

413.3 Separate Facilities

Separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex.

Exceptions:

(2) In occupancies serving ten (10) or fewer people, one (1) toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one (1) person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes.

(3) In business and mercantile occupancies with a total floor area of fifteen hundred (1500) square feet (139.5 m 2 ) or less, one (1) toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one (1) person at a time, shall satisfy the requirements for serving customers and employees of both sexes.

413.5 Facilities in Mercantile and Business Occupancies Serving Customers

413.5.1 Requirements for customers and employees shall be permitted to be met with a single set of restrooms accessible to both groups. The required number of fixtures shall be the greater of the required number for employees or the required number for customers.

413.5.2 Fixtures for customer use shall be permitted to be met by providing a centrally located facility accessible to several stores. The maximum distance from entry to any store to this facility shall not exceed five hundred (500) feet (152.4 m).

The general provisions of Section 413.0 and Table 4-1 have requirements for employee use and public use in a number of occupancies including assembly, institutional, and office or public buildings.


----------



## Dr. J (Aug 26, 2010)

The operative phrase is "intended for public utilization".  The public consists of close to 5 billion people.  If a business owner intends his building for use by only 4.99999 billion, it is not "intended for public utilization".

ALL buildings have "Customers, patrons and visitors".  If this is the operative phrase, give me an example of a building that would NOT be required to allow vagrants and snot nosed kids to pee in their toilet rooms.


----------



## globe trekker (Aug 26, 2010)

Dr. J. ( and others ),

As the question has already been raised... who is going to be the Restroom Police? The

Building Dept. has already issued a C. of O., ...their responsibility has ended.

If the business owner places a non-legitmate "Out of Order" sign on the restroom

door; the employees can use it, but it will deter others. Now what... ?

Again, who is going to file a suit alleging "non-restroom" access / use?

Just asking...

The Property Maintenance Code ' requires ' maintenance of the facilities.

So what!! The Code Enforcement Officer ( CEO ) impromptu inspects the

business, ...goes the whole process of requiring the business to make accessible

the restrooms. When the business is deemed compliant, should the CEO

inspect more often that business ( and the thousands of other businesses )?

Should the CEO ( or their dept. ) be the Restroom Police?

Ya'll DO know that this type of arrangement is NOT politically favorable to

most CEO's, or their dept. directors... 

.


----------



## peach (Aug 26, 2010)

They are required, and they are required to be available to the public..

Everyday, I see businesses with signs "no public restrooms" or "restrooms only for customers"... I'm not the AHJ, but it's a violation.  I've bought a coffee for a maybe vagrant.. maybe someone scoping the place, maybe someone scoping for code violations JUST so they could get a token to use the restroom.  Better than watching them pee (or worse) on the street.  It's not my practice, but sometimes ya gotta be human too.


----------



## Dr. J (Aug 27, 2010)

It is impractical for the building code authorities to be the restroom police, so the issue is moot for existing facilities.  However, "public restrooms are required" type AHJ's could require public restrooms at the time of plan review.  This is where I take issue with this.

Are you going to dictate where a toilet room can be?  What if the owner has security requirements, and only badged personnel are allowed in the building?  Is that illegal?  Do they have to have toilet rooms with an exterior door to allow little kids to pee?  Of course not, right?  I would hope you would say that all they have to do is provide a toilet room for those customers, patrons and visitors that make it past security.  So why is that different than a less secure facility choosing which people can use their restroom?  Will you say it is only mercantile occupancies that require "public" restrooms (which would require making stuff up that's not in the code)?  What about the jewelry store that 'buzzes' only potential customers through the door?  Recall that the "public restrooms are required" argument must ignore the "intended for use by the public" part of the code and only focuses on the "Customers, patrons and visitors" part.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 27, 2010)

Dr J

Who's making stuff up that's not in the code?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 27, 2010)

*Colorado has it's own issues*

Colorado Law passed allowing men to use women's restrooms

Jun 19, 2008

With today's signature on SB200, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, has eliminated gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide, giving woman and girls reason to fear being confronted by predators, cross-dressers "or even a homosexual or heterosexual male," according to a critic.

The state's new "transgender nondiscrimination" bill makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity.

Ritter signed the Expanded Discrimination Prohibitions, approved by the legislature, with this definition:

"'Sexual orientation' means a person's orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person's perception thereof."

"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast ministry in Colorado Springs.


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 27, 2010)

Scary:  ..."or another person's perception thereof."


----------



## Dr. J (Aug 27, 2010)

What I was refering to was IF an AHJ were to make some sort of statement that the requirement for public restrooms are limited to a certain group of occupancies, say M or A, then that would be making stuff up.  There is no such limitation.  If one is of the opinion that public restrooms are required, they are required in just about every building.  A facility that keeps their bathroom behind badge-through security is no different than keeping it under lock and key off a sales floor.  Saying it does make a difference would be making stuff up.

Actually, the whole issue of saying public restrooms are required is a matter, not so much of making stuff up that does not exist, but ignoring stuff that does exist.  According to the code, only buildings that are intended for public utilization require public restrooms.  By definition, if it is not intended for utilization by bums, little kids, people without security badges, or any other segment of the public, it is not intended for public utilization.


----------



## Dr. J (Aug 27, 2010)

From Mark's earlier post, quoting the UBC:



> 413.5 Facilities in Mercantile and Business Occupancies Serving Customers413.5.1 Requirements for customers and employees shall be permitted to be met with a single set of restrooms accessible to both groups. The required number of fixtures shall be the greater of the required number for employees or the required number for customers.
> 
> 413.5.2 Fixtures for customer use shall be permitted to be met by providing a centrally located facility accessible to several stores. The maximum distance from entry to any store to this facility shall not exceed five hundred (500) feet (152.4 m).


Customers is the operative word here.  If you are not buying something or if you don't have any business beyond the security barrier, the business is not obligated to provide you with a restroom.  Clearly "customers only".  Not "public".  On the other hand, "employees only" is not legal.


----------



## JBI (Aug 27, 2010)

We've all debated this many times before, and some will never agree. The store is required to provide facilities but there is no requirement to leave the door unlocked for use by non-patrons/non-employees.

Asking for the key takes no more time or effort than asking where the room is located. Had the convenience store manager denied the boy accesss (refused to give him the key), and the boy were in fact a patron (or with an adult who was a patron) there would be an enforceable violation - as is the case with the Salvation Army Thrift Store. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but a warning and advisory not to let it happen again would be more reasonable than a fine. The aggrieved customer has the option to seek redress in civil court if they choose.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 27, 2010)

Should have pee'd on the clerks leg


----------



## Dr. J (Aug 28, 2010)

> The store is required to provide facilities but there is no requirement to leave the door unlocked for use by non-patrons/non-employees.


That's all I am saying.  UPC is better written, but IPC gets to the same place eventually.  Since the p-fixture count is based on occupant load, which includes customers, the fixtures are required.


----------



## peach (Aug 29, 2010)

It's not the Building official to enforce.. it's a code enforcement issue.. which is usually a different department with different rights of entry...  it's a violation for someone to enforce.


----------



## pyrguy (Aug 29, 2010)

I used to live in a jurisdiction that only required toilet rooms in 'A' occupancies. The other occupancies could do without.     :roll:


----------



## peach (Aug 29, 2010)

wow.. I don't have the words...


----------

