|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
lhenk
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 10:43 am Post subject: your opinion: Is a church cabin a public building? |
    |
|
I have designed a church cabin for our church at a Methodist youth camp. I have met all the requirements of the Dept. of Public Health section 810 for youth camps. The plan was submitted to the Dept. of Public Health for review and was approved. We began construction and the plumbing was installed by an Illinois licensed plumber. The Dept. of Public Health plumbing inspector reviewed the plumbing and rejected it based on the fact that only 1 of the 2 bathrooms were handicap accessable. He stated that since this is a public building I had to meet the Capital Development Board part 400 of the Illinois Accessibility code. He said that ment I had to have both bathrooms handicap accessible. He also said that the person who approved the plans was mistaken and we had to redesign or be condemed.
I have reviewed this code and according to their definition of "public facility" I don't believe the cabin is a public building. Although our church is open to everyone, the cabin is only open to the youth of our members. We own the lot and the building even though it is on the Methodist Youth Camp grounds. I would agree that perhaps the youth camp itself maybe a public facility in which the tabernacle, mess hall and dormitories are subject to the accessiblity code but our cabin is only open to our church members. Other cabins on this camp are owned by individuals or other churches.
Do you think this should be classified as a public facility or private?
_________________
Larry |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lhenk
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
FYI
I have talked to a rep. from the CDB and he said they pretty much take the possition that all buildings are considered public facilities unless it is a house.
A long time local architect told me there are 3 codes that the Dept of Public Health follows: The written code, the amended code and the un-written code. He has been down a similar road with the DPH inspector. In his past experience the inspector has agreed that all written codes have been met but he wanted modifications based on un-written codes. I don't know if the inspector makes them up or if the department sends down instructions. None the less, this architect told me you're pretty much at their mercy and to just do as they say.
I don't like it, I think it is wrong, but I don't have much choice at this point.
Furthermore, the inspector said you can't have a bathroom without a lavitory. I put the lavitory right ouside the bathroom so campers could use it when the bathroom was occupied. This is just like the set up at most hotels. I don't know how it can be permitted in the hotels in this town but not permitted in a church cabin use 1 week a year.
_________________
Larry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lhenk
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Donald, I have come to that same conclusion. The CDB engineer told me to consult an experienced architect that is why I asked the question here.
when I got no replies I assumed all those who viewed my question had no opinion to offer. I posted the follow-up as FYI only in case someone else every ran into a similar situation.
My intent is to use this forum for information and to offer information not justification.
_________________
Larry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveA
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 28
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 8:11 am Post subject: A Public Building? |
|
|
I agree that you have to bite the bullet and do it. All structures should be ADA accessible. However this scenario bothers me in a couple of ways:
1. ADA is an Act as opposed to a law and as such it is really up to the building owner to decide how they wish to react to it, knowing that they are liable should a discrimination suit be brought against them.
2. This is a private building in the sense that it is owned by a private entity. No public funds were used for its construction , as far as I know.
Given this, I don't see how one can be forced to comply. But its a little like a legal defense against a petty claim: you'll spend a ton of time and money making your case when it will be more cost effective, not to mention comodious, if you just do it. Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gretchen
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu May 06, 2004 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a very odd subject and I would be interested in more information. It seems to me that the line would be drawn at its occupancy classification and not WHO occupies it. Because it is a cabin at a camp, I first assumed its primary function to be boarding, lending it to a more of a residential status. But then you mentioned dormitories as a separate building, so then I thought maybe it was used more for assembly which brings you to a public status kind of by default? Then in your follow up you mentioned speaking to the CBD at least a little about residences.
While I would agree that buildings that aren’t houses are public, all of the spaces in the building are not. I was told by our accessibility reviewer that hotel rooms and apartments were not governed by ADA and provided accessible rooms only at their discretion to be accommodating (since they classified as residential spaces). Whereas the clubhouse or lobby may have to comply. I would assume the same of dormitories regardless of what you stated and would be interested if you know differently.
As a side note regarding religious facilities, here in Texas the latest regulation (after many variations) is any space where the primary religious ritual takes place is exempt. IE- In a chapel building, only the chapel portion would be exempt. Any storage closet, toilet room, conference room, office, etc as part of the same building would still have to comply. This would include access to the space regardless of the route required.
Assuming you are not classified as Residential and not performing religious rituals in the bathroom, I would have to agree with the inspector in this case. Just my opinion. If you ARE classified as residential, I think you were right but I don’t know if it would be worth the time arguing it at this point, since you are already under construction.
I am, however, on your side regarding the sink outside the bathroom. But perhaps this also comes with the occupancy classification. I have not seen the configuration outside of a residential setting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
