Exploring the Ohio Building Code - Alterations to Existing Buildings

This month we take a moment to discuss what the Ohio Building code requires for alterations to existing structures and how OBC section 3411 “Accessibility for Existing Buildings” is intended to be applied. 

Recently most of my writing on the code has intentionally been focused on sections of the code that are found in both the Ohio Building Code and the Model Code. Focusing on the model code improves general code knowledge, but in doing so ignores the nuisances of the requirements for the majority of new construction, alterations to existing buildings. Unfortunately the approach to existing buildings varies from state to state, with most states using a modified version of the International Existing Building Code. This article will focus on how Ohio approaches alterations to existing buildings which is outlined in 3404 of the Ohio Building Code with accessibility requirements in 3411.

The basic premise of 3404 is that alterations to existing spaces must meet the requirements of the code for new construction to the extent of the alterations, with noted exceptions to stairs. Stairs and their associated handrails are permitted to conform to the criteria of a prior edition of the OBC. This means that in buildings with railing heights or rises and runs that don’t meet the current code they shall be permitted to remain existing.  Now it’s important to remember that 3404 assumes that the space is not experiencing a change of occupancy? Changes of occupancy are governed by 3408 and place a much higher burden on the existing building.

Seems fairly simple except that 3411.6 and 3411.7 addresses what alterations are required for accessibility. The difference between the two sections is if the alteration is to an area of Primary Function. So the definition of an area of primary function is critical as the difference is substantial.

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer service lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.

Based on this most spaces can be considered areas of primary function. When the space being altered is not a primary function than only the space being altered is required to meet the requirements of the code for new construction. When it is a space of primary function 3411.7 requires that not only the space being altered meet the requirements for new construction, but the route to the primary function and the amenities serving the area shall be made accessible including toilet facilities and drinking fountains.

3411.7.1 Provides for disproportionate costs which requires that 20% of a projects cost should be used to bring down barriers and this should be addressed in the following order.

1. An accessible entrance;

2. An accessible route to the altered area;

3. At least one accessible restroom for each sex or a single unisex restroom;

4. Accessible telephones;

5. Accessible drinking fountains;

6. When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, storage, and alarms.

Of the above list #3 is the most important because often entrances and accessible routes within a space are often already accessible, but restrooms are not. #3 allows in the event of disproportionate cost that when the cost of remodeling existing restrooms to be accessible would exceed 20% of a projects cost a single unisex restroom could be provided. I must stress that whenever possible the existing restrooms unless technical infeasible should be made accessible and that providing a unisex restroom is not a get out of jail free card if 20% of the projects budget could have been used to make the existing restrooms accessible.

The last item I wanted to discuss was instructions provided by the Ohio Board of Building Standards. The Ohio Board of Building Standards produce the Ohio Building Code and when possible provides guidance on how Ohio sections of the building code like chapter 34 are intended to be interpreted. They now require that building officials and plans examiner receive regular training on Existing Buildings and Ethics. Regarding the application of accessibility requirements they have provided some guidance that is important, and even though it varies from state to state the Ohio interpretation in my opinion is grounded in reason and logic.

Some states such as California regardless of the nature of a project impose accessibility requirements that go far beyond a tenants lease line and could include updating common restrooms or exterior parking lots. The issue with this approach is that tenants may not have the ability to impact or alter these areas and the burden to address these items really should fall on the landlord. Unfortunately when these issues arise they can often also become the burden of the tenant design professional. Some clients when faced with escalating construction and design costs, legal haze as to what they are permitted to alter outside their leased premises, and little to no help from landlords, put their frustrations back on the design professional. 

The Ohio Board of Building Standards has taken the approach that landlords are responsible for providing exterior accessibility to tenants except when either the tenant is leasing the majority or is the soul tenant of an entire building. An example of a tenant that would lease a large footprint would be a grocery store in a shopping center. The Grocery store has primary control over the parking lot and as the primary user of the shopping center has the ability to make accessibility improvements to the parking lot or negotiate as part of their lease that the landlord make accessibility improvements. Its neighboring small tenants don’t have that same ability to affect change outside their lease line. Therefore in this instance the board of building standards would encourage building departments to not place the burden on these tenants but landlords. Another example is a multistory and multitenant office building. If there are several tenants on a floor, the Ohio Board of Building Standards would discourage making a single tenant responsible for making improvements to a parking lot or even common restrooms, but if the tenant was leasing an entire floor the restrooms on that floor should be within the tenant’s scope of work. However if they are still one tenant amongst many the parking lot would not be their responsibility.