Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 Plumbing Board Minutes DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND \ NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N.Capitol Avenue,Suites C-1 • Lansing MI 48933-1238 (517)483-4355• FAX: (517)377-0169 BUILDING SAFETY OFFICE Virg Bernero, Mayor OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF LANSING PLUMBING BOARD OF APPEALS Held at 316 N. Capitol Ave. at 7:00 pm The April 26, 2016 Special Meeting of the City of Lansing Plumbing Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:00 PM. by Stephen Reck. The following members were in attendance: Stephen Reck (SR) Geoff Mowry (GM) Jeremy Garza (JG) Emmet Kelly (EK) Members Absent: None Staff Present: Dave Burton, Chief Plumbing Inspector (DB) Joseph Abood, Interim City Attorney (JA) Petitioners Present: Nick Eyde (NE)' Mitch Irwin (MI) Todd Callaway (TC) James Flora (JF) Public Present: None SR asked for the approval of the April 14, 2016 meeting minutes. Minutes approved by unanimous vote. Old Business: Case No.: Address: Petitioner: PBA-001-2016 232 S Washington Sq. Nick Eyde et. al. SR requested that JA present his Memorandum to the Mayor to the Board. JA introduced himself as the Interim City Attorney and outlined how the request for the Memorandum came about. He stated that he does "law' and was asked to provide an opinion for use of the Board. He did not intend to tell the Board how to interpret the Code, or do their business. He stated that he reviewed the Code and found that key terms for this issue at hand were not specifically defined in the Code. He indicated that if a term is not defined it leans towards flexibility in the use of the term. He stated that it appears to him that there is no legal basis to deny the appeal. He then offered to take questions from the Board. 1 EK referenced section 101.3 of the Michigan Plumbing Code 2012 (MPC) and noted that the intent of the code was to provide for the public safety and that included the location of plumbing equipment and systems. He stated that his concern is that with people drinking they may act inappropriately and that was his concern. He further stated that just because someone else was permitting this, that it depends on the Code in that jurisdiction. JA responded that the establishment is legally responsible to not serve someone who is intoxicated. TC stated that from an architectural standpoint these restrooms are open to the lobby and activity within will be observed from the lobby. He further stated that the toilets have locks. EK stated that the problem is not limited to physical abuse only, but could include verbal abuse and harassment. This could lead to violence. TC talked about visiting Metamora Michigan (Whitehorse Inn) with his family and they had a design just like this. He asked his family if they were OK with the arrangement and they were. EK asked what the dimensions of the room were. TC stated that they could install cameras in the open area because there is not a requirement for privacy at the lavatories. SR asked about the width of the doorway opening. TC responded that is was 42 or 48 inches and was larger than a normal doorway. EK asked about the issue of the privacy at the lavatories. TC responded that JF could respond to that. JF indicated the partition at the lavatories is a low partition that you could converse over. Further JF stated that the stalls are equipped with mirrors for the women. TC stated that in an open room like this you will behave better because you are on display. JA indicated that the larger legal issue on the horizon is that gender identity doesn't have to be declared until you are actually at the stall. This is going to be a big issue going forward. It would be dangerous to interpret the code on the basis of social mores. SR indicated that there has been a long history of how this has been interpreted as to what is separate, room, and facilities. This is a change from the longstanding interpretation of the Code. He further stated that he called the establishment in Chicago and they indicated that they hadn't had any problems, but that was only anecdotal. Further he thought that cleanliness could be an issue. JF recounted an incident in his Kalamazoo location where a woman, while flushing the toilet with her foot, broke the pipe and they had to close the women's room for thirty minutes to stop the leak and clean up the mess. This design would allow the room to remain in use while this was taking place. JG asked what keeps people from using stalls based on availability rather than gender designation. TC responded that there really isn't anything preventing that. DB asked about how they proposed to provide floor drains. 2 TC responded that there would be a gap under the door. EK stated that he felt that this should be going to the State Plumbing Board for a technical bulletin. JA mentioned that waiting on the State could be problematic. NE mentioned that from a developer's perspective that this should be allowed to go forward and the local Board should decide. EK mentioned that in his years as the Assistant Chief of the Plumbing Division at the State of Michigan he encountered some local plumbing inspectors that acted as if the Code was whatever they thought it was. He said that he didn't know what happened in Metamora and inquired if it went to the Appeals Board there. TC responded that it did not and that he felt it didn't need to because his design is in compliance. DB mentioned that after the meeting in the Mayor's office he called up to the Mechanical Inspectors Association of Michigan conference and asked our Brian Shields, Chief Mechanical Inspector, to poll the members that are dual registered in mechanical and plumbing like Brian is. He reported back that of the several inspectors present, none of them felt the proposed design complied with Code. TC responded that he felt he was in compliance and the definitions of room etcetera were open to interpretation other than the way the City had interpreted them. GM stated that as an individual he was in favor of the proposal and wished them the best of luck. But as a Board member he believed that his job was not to change the Code and asked for some clarification of JA's memorandum. JA provided an explanation of how the definitions were arrived at. GM noted that in section 201.4 that terms notdefined shall have their ordinary meaning as the context implies. He noted that when he looked in the dictionary that facility meant all the parts of the bathroom when they use it in that context. He stated that you had gotten closer but he still wasn't convinced it met the Code. MI asked what the decision before the Board was number one and number two what the right thing to do is. He thought that friends could disagree but at the end of the day this Board has to make a decision. SR called the question. Though he thought this should be handled at a higher level as EK did but we need to decide one way or the other. He thought it met the intent of the Code if not the letter. DB put forward the possible actions for the Board could take. • Grant the appeal. • Deny the appeal. • Grant the appeal with conditions. • Table the appeal. Motion made by EK to grant the appeal. Second by GM. Motion FAILED with SR voting YES and EK, JG, GM voting NO. New Business: None Public Comment: None 3 GM moved to adjourn. Motion Seconded by JG. M m%n passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Dave Burton, Chief Plumbing Inspector Draft Date: 589016 Approved Date: 7: Mayor's Office Board Secretary City Clerk's Office Building Sa! tyOffice ma Representatives Appeal folders Appeal applicants \ Public§e-original 4