# ADAAG vs. ANSI A117.1 for multi-family...



## vegas paul (Apr 1, 2010)

I'm new to ADAAG, relatively speaking.  I recently moved from a jurisdiction that used IBC Ch. 11 and ANSI A117.1 for accessibility, to a jurisdiction where STATE law mandates that ADAAG is used fo accessibility.  Consequently, Ch. 11 is deleted, and ADAAG is adopted.

No big deal in most respects, but...

What about multi-family?  I can't see anything in ADAAG that requires accessible, type A or type B units for apartments, condos, etc.  Now, the Fair-Housing might address this, but since our codes don't cite anything other than ADAAG, and it's not a federal housing project, does that mean no accessibility requirements?


----------



## mark handler (Apr 1, 2010)

What about multi-family?

Fair Housing Guidelines

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/PDF/FAIRHOUSING/fairfull.pdf


----------



## vegas paul (Apr 1, 2010)

Thanks Mark, I'm aware of the Fair Housing guidelines, but as I stated in the original post, we only adopted ADAAG, not Fair Housing!  This is more of a weakness in our code adoption, I guess, than anactual code question.  Unless there is a path from ADAAG to FH, then there is a disconnect.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 1, 2010)

You don't Adopt the Fair Housing guidelines

Fair Housing is the Federal law that covers multihousing.

It is the Law of the Land.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 1, 2010)

Here is your link

http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/about/FAQ.htm

Accessibility in multifamily residential facilities generally is covered by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) and its related regulations and standards; for more information, contact the Department of Housing and Urban Development. All housing - even single-family residences - constructed or altered by or on behalf of state and local governments must meet ADA title II requirements. Since ADAAG does not yet include scoping or technical provisions for residential units, public entities should use UFAS as the accessibility standard until the Access Board completes work on title II housing guidelines. Residential design, construction, and alterations supported by Federal funds are covered by the ABA; Federally-***isted or -conducted housing programs and services are covered by the Rehabilitation Act. Both require conformance to UFAS accessibility provisions in new construction and alterations. Housing projects may in fact be covered by the ABA, the Rehabilitation Act, the FHAA, and the ADA; by applying the most stringent of the UFAS/FHAAG/ADAAG scoping and technical provisions, developers can satisfy all requirements.


----------



## vegas paul (Apr 1, 2010)

thanks... but still confused.  You said "constructed or altered by or on behalf of state and local governments..."  Now, if it's merely a private developer building apartments, then what?  Ch. 11 and ANSI makes it easy, but do I automatically invoke FHAA if we have deleted Ch. 11 from the code?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 1, 2010)

Hey Paul,

If you've deleted Chapter 11 then you do not have that to invoke.  And, unless you adopted the FHA you don't have that to invoke either.  In which case there is nothing to say regarding accessibility except to tell them that they're on their own.

What Mark is saying is that the owner/designer has a different level of compliance depending on whether it's a private project or a federally funded project.  Regardless, all multi-family is covered by FHA.  But, as I said, that's federal law - not locally adopted rules and code.  You can't enforce it - only advise that they need to pay attention to it.  Chapter 11 and A117.1 are what the building code uses unless you amend the code to replace it with something else.


----------



## RLM-Architect (Apr 3, 2010)

Paul

I am pretty sure that the ADAAG would be applied throughout the multifamily site up to and including the doors of ground floor units and any units accessed by an elevator.

If I were in your situation, I would at least communicate the concern about the FHA Guidelines since as mentioned before, "it is the law of the land", and then I would go to my upperlings (bosses?) and let them know there is a hole regarding multifamily that needs addressing.

If I were the developer, I would at least think you did the right thing.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Apr 3, 2010)

*Paul,*

*Is it already time to stick your neck out?*

*Looks like a good presentation to the governing body; and the re-introduction of Chapter 11 is in order.*

*The fact that ADAGG is a "federal guideline" that already has it's own enforcement actions; and that ANSI 117.1 is more specific to building code construction requirements and is better suited to local enforcement; should be enough to make the correction.*

*Uncle Bob*


----------



## brudgers (Apr 3, 2010)

vegas paul said:
			
		

> I'm new to ADAAG, relatively speaking.  I recently moved from a jurisdiction that used IBC Ch. 11 and ANSI A117.1 for accessibility, to a jurisdiction where STATE law mandates that ADAAG is used fo accessibility.  Consequently, Ch. 11 is deleted, and ADAAG is adopted.No big deal in most respects, but...
> 
> What about multi-family?  I can't see anything in ADAAG that requires accessible, type A or type B units for apartments, condos, etc.  Now, the Fair-Housing might address this, but since our codes don't cite anything other than ADAAG, and it's not a federal housing project, does that mean no accessibility requirements?


FHA governs your multi-family housing regardless of what the building code says.

Type A and B units are a mess concocted by IBC/ANSI A117.1.  FHA guidelines are already designed to allow dwellings to be adapted for the disabled.

The principal is that a dwelling does not require the same degree of accommodation as a public space because a disabled occupant is familiar with it and able to adapt it to their specific requirements in a way they cannot with a place of public accommodation.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 3, 2010)

vegas paul said:
			
		

> thanks... but still confused.  You said "constructed or altered by or on behalf of state and local governments..."  Now, if it's merely a private developer building apartments, then what?  Ch. 11 and ANSI makes it easy, but do I automatically invoke FHAA if we have deleted Ch. 11 from the code?


My recommendation:  adopt the FHA requirements into your local code without modification.


----------



## peach (Apr 3, 2010)

oh God no.. enforce Ch 11 and ANSI A117..

unless there is local charging legislation to enforce Federal law.. don't do it..

Fair Housing is HUD and ADA is DOJ...

These are Fed guidelines.. for the Federal Government to enforce.. dont get involved.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 3, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> oh God no.. enforce Ch 11 and ANSI A117.. unless there is local charging legislation to enforce Federal law.. don't do it..
> 
> Fair Housing is HUD and ADA is DOJ...
> 
> These are Fed guidelines.. for the Federal Government to enforce.. dont get involved.


A117.1 and chapter 11 don't offer any more clarity than ADAAG or FHA Accessibility guidelines...and they have many superfluous requirements.

Florida uses both (with very slight additions to ADAAG) and it is much more straight forward than the IBC + A117.1.

In part because the requirements don't change every three years.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Apr 4, 2010)

The problem with federal "guidelines" is in the title. They are guidelines; and the feds state that if you use some other method and show that a handicaped person (and, you can pick him/her) can get into the building without "undue" stress and strain; for example; then you may win a law suit in court.

Federal guidelines are subject to court action prior to enforcement.

The codes are not subject to court action "before" they can be enforced.

Chapter 11 and ANSI 117.1 contains "requirements" not suggestions; and that's the big difference.

Uncle Bob


----------



## vegas paul (Apr 4, 2010)

Thanks for all the input.  Just to recap, Kansas has adopted ADA statewide, so our jurisdiction deleted Dh.11 and did not adopte ANSI, per local amendments.  The problem I'm having is that ADAAG is completely silent regarding multi-family, so I can't apply ADAAG to apartments/condos.  Now FHA may be the law of the land, but I don't enforce it, HUD does.  If the plans submitted contain accessibilty features, then I can evaluate them against the building codes (such as ramps, etc.).  If the plans do not have any accessibility features (or contain barriers/obstructions), I am stuck, and can't require compliance with any adopted code.

Kind of a challenge, but not the top priority on my list right now!   Thanks again for the comments.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Apr 4, 2010)

Paul,

Check out Witchita's codes; especially the amendments concerning multi-family dwellings;

Chapter 18.50; see Sec. 18.50.940 (A) multi-family dwellings, for example;

http://library6.municode.com/default-now/home.htm?infobase=14166&doc_action=whatsnew

You may find the answer to your delima here,

Uncle Bob


----------



## peach (Apr 4, 2010)

why would the state adopt Federal legislation, Paul.

ADA is the law of the land, but it's DOJ law... nothing to do with building codes... that's why Chapter 11 and ASNI A 117 have the provisions they have for accessibility.

The problem with deleting provisions for accessibility locally, is you have no legal means to enforce* any *accessibility provisions.. unless you are specficially charged by DOJ to do so (ADA is civil rights legislation).. or HUD to enforce Fair Housing.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 4, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> The problem with federal "guidelines" is in the title. They are guidelines; and the feds state that if you use some other method and show that a handicaped person (and, you can pick him/her) can get into the building without "undue" stress and strain; for example; then you may win a law suit in court.Federal guidelines are subject to court action prior to enforcement.
> 
> The codes are not subject to court action "before" they can be enforced.
> 
> ...


Everything in ADAAG and FHA is a requirement and you can be dragged into court under ADAAG regardless of whether you enforce it or not.  There's no save harbor for civil rights violations.

Personally, if I were a code official, I'd rather be able to say in court "We take ADA very seriously," rather than "I ignore ADA as much as possible."

But hey, that's just me.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 4, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> why would the state adopt Federal legislation, Paul.ADA is the law of the land, but it's DOJ law... nothing to do with building codes... that's why Chapter 11 and ASNI A 117 have the provisions they have for accessibility.
> 
> The problem with deleting provisions for accessibility locally, is you have no legal means to enforce* any *accessibility provisions.. unless you are specficially charged by DOJ to do so (ADA is civil rights legislation).. or HUD to enforce Fair Housing.


ADA is required whether you adopt it into your codes or not.

Adopting it makes life easier.

There are fewer restrictions than A117.1 and enforcement ipso facto complies with Federal Statutes.

In all honesty, I suspect that any building department that allows A117.1 in lieu of requiring ADAAG compliance is vulnerable to a discrimination lawsuit.  Even if nobody has bothered to do it yet, anyone using has A117.1 has adopted a code that is discriminatory.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 5, 2010)

The problem with enforcing the ADA when there is no enabling legislation is jurisdictional boundary. The local designer/builder/owner who has to pay for something has the opportunity to sue the enforcer for malfeasance should that enforcer be requiring something that they do not have the authority to enforce. At the very least it would be nonfeasance. Of course, the irony is that the enforcer would be requiring them to do something that they should be doing under the federal regulations but for which the enforcer has no authority. It would be like a Pennsylvania trooper arresting a driver in Nevada. Or, more straightforward, like a plan reviewer in Alabama approving a set of plans in Kansas. There's no authority to do so.

Is the designer/builder/owner subject to the ADA, ADAAG and FHA? - yes! Can the local official properly enforce those if they are not authorized to do so? - No!

Paul,

What you need to do is find out from the state authorities whether the law authorizes local enforcement or how enforcement was intended. Arizona does the same thing with it's law - everything must meet the ADAAG but leaves the enforcement of that to the state civil rights division. Local jurisdictions adopt the IBC and enforce the provisions there. They express the current thinking of the accessibility community since they are more actively "tweaked" to recognize clarifications and changing trends in society and design. The feds cannot certify the IBC like they can for state adopted codes (btw: Kansas doesn't have a code that's certified), but they have reviewed and made comparisons and offered a decision on whether the IBC with A117.1 is in keeping with the intent of the ADA - and it is. ( http://www.ada.gov/NPRM2008/ria_appendix09.htm)

Next time, ask them to keep Chapter 11 as is.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 5, 2010)

I'd love to see that lawsuit against the building department...you know the one in which the Owner states "We're not complying with ADA."


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 5, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I'd love to see that lawsuit against the building department...you know the one in which the Owner states "We're not complying with ADA."


yeh, well THAT certainly wouldn't be in the text. . . .


----------



## brudgers (Apr 5, 2010)

That's what depositions are for.


----------



## peach (Apr 6, 2010)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> The problem with enforcing the ADA when there is no enabling legislation is jurisdictional boundary. The local designer/builder/owner who has to pay for something has the opportunity to sue the enforcer for malfeasance should that enforcer be requiring something that they do not have the authority to enforce. At the very least it would be nonfeasance. Of course, the irony is that the enforcer would be requiring them to do something that they should be doing under the federal regulations but for which the enforcer has no authority. It would be like a Pennsylvania trooper arresting a driver in Nevada. Or, more straightforward, like a plan reviewer in Alabama approving a set of plans in Kansas. There's no authority to do so.Is the designer/builder/owner subject to the ADA, ADAAG and FHA? - yes! Can the local official properly enforce those if they are not authorized to do so? - No!
> 
> Paul,
> 
> ...


Well said.. the building department has no authority to enforce federal civil rights legislation.. that's why there is a chapter 11 and ANSI A117 ..  they are written to "deem to comply" with ADAAG..

in any event.. it gives you something to enforce... with the right to enforce... trust me.. DOJ will tell you that ADA is not your law to enforce.

the owner is on the hook forever, as is the designer.. it's their responsibility to design and maintain the building IAW ADA... not ours


----------



## brudgers (Apr 6, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Well said.. the building department has no authority to enforce federal civil rights legislation.. that's why there is a chapter 11 and ANSI A117 ..  they are written to "deem to comply" with ADAAG..


They are not deemed to comply with ADAAG.  The list of DOJ certified codes is short, and all of them look a whole lot like a copy of ADAAG.

Any jurisdiction that adopts Chapter 11 and ANSI A117.1 is explicitly adopting and enforcing a code that does not comply with ADAAG.

One day, there is likely to be a really nasty series of lawsuits filed.  It's a gold mine.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Apr 7, 2010)

xcdptmgrdl


----------



## Paul Sweet (Apr 7, 2010)

A few random thoughts.

ADAAG can be enforced if it's adopted as part of the building code, just like any other reference standard.

ADAAG and ANSI A117.1 aren't really that far apart.

ADAAG contains several requirements that aren't properly a building code issue, such as bus stops, movable equipment, etc.  These are in IBC Appendix E.  This is one reason that DOJ doesn't recognize the IBC as providing equivalent protection.

Unless Kansas is using the original ADAAG or amended out the ABA (Architectural Barriers Act) scoping you can still get to most of the accessibility requirements of the IBC.  The main ones that would be lacking are Type B dwelling units, churches, & private clubs.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 7, 2010)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> The main ones that would be lacking are Type B dwelling units, churches, & private clubs.


Exactly how the people's elected representatives intended it to be.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 7, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> They are not deemed to comply with ADAAG. The list of DOJ certified codes is short, and all of them look a whole lot like a copy of ADAAG.Any jurisdiction that adopts Chapter 11 and ANSI A117.1 is explicitly adopting and enforcing a code that does not comply with ADAAG.
> 
> One day, there is likely to be a really nasty series of lawsuits filed. It's a gold mine.


Any jurisdiction that strips Chapter 11 and the ASNI is weakening the requirements placed therein. The ADAAG does not go away. It is the *Owner's* responsibility for compliance not the building official's responsibility.  As noted above the use of the IBC places additional requirements for accessibility not found in the ADAAG alone (especially the 1991 version).



FYI: The ICC has a task force that will begin an extensive study for "harmonization of the IBC/A117.1 with the proposed 2004 ADAAG as soon as the 2010 A117.1 is published.  Although we still don't know what the final version of the new ADAAG will look like (since the feds are only 2 decades behind - and don't even start talking about UFAS) the analysis will look at the text as it was proposed during the ending days of the prior administration.



BTW: the elected representatives don't write the ADAAG anyway.  It's federal rulemaking by a sitting executive branch.  The elected officials voted for the ADA which is unenforceable except through federal lawsuit.  Now which is less expensive and burdensome?


----------



## brudgers (Apr 7, 2010)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Any jurisdiction that strips Chapter 11 and the ASNI is weakening the requirements placed therein. The ADAAG does not go away. It is the *Owner's* responsibility for compliance not the building official's responsibility.  As noted above the use of the IBC places additional requirements for accessibility not found in the ADAAG alone (especially the 1991 version).
> 
> FYI: The ICC has a task force that will begin an extensive study for "harmonization of the IBC/A117.1 with the proposed 2004 ADAAG as soon as the 2010 A117.1 is published.  Although we still don't know what the final version of the new ADAAG will look like (since the feds are only 2 decades behind - and don't even start talking about UFAS) the analysis will look at the text as it was proposed during the ending days of the prior administration.
> 
> ...


The 2004 rules are unworkable because their based on the building code which has since changed (never mind the fact that they lessen several accessibility provisions).

A belief that a jurisdiction has immunity after adopting a code that is known not to  comply with Federal civil rights law is naive at best.  It's somewhat analogous to adopting and enforcing a plumbing code that specifies the number of "colored" fixtures.

When you find the part of ADA that exempts Building Officials from lawsuits, let me know.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 7, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The 2004 rules are unworkable because their based on the building code which has since changed (never mind the fact that they lessen several accessibility provisions).A belief that a jurisdiction has immunity after adopting a code that is known not to comply with Federal civil rights law is naive at best. It's somewhat analogous to adopting and enforcing a plumbing code that specifies the number of "colored" fixtures.
> 
> When you find the part of ADA that exempts Building Officials from lawsuits, let me know.


The analogy is incorrect.  The example used is specific in that fact that it requires a civil rights violation in the very wording used.  The building codes specify requirements that may be more or less than the federal requirement.  The same happens all the time with EPA provisions.  You're being paranoid.



And, the 2004 ADAAG are far superior to the 1991 since they address issues that weren't even covered in the prior edition (i.e. recreational facilities).  In fact the 2004 ADAAG defers to the IBC for the design of the accessible means of egress.  If you don't like the fact that you perceive something in the 2004 ADAAG to be less restrictive, then call up the DoJ and make your voice heard.  That’s the route we all have.



Regarding the immunity of the building official; it’s in the following text:

_Sec. 12182. Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations_

_(a) General rule_

_No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation __*by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation*__._



The building official is not the person who “owns, leases’ or operates” a place of public accommodation.  This is borne out by case law.  In USA –v- ELLERBE BECKET, INC. (Civil Action No. 4-96-995), the court dismissed the charges filed against the building department which was a part of the original filing.  I’m paraphrasing now but the point was that the federal law holds the owner and tenant responsible – the architect can be held responsible as a proxy because the architect is acting on the owner’s behalf and supposedly has the knowledge to understand and interp the law in this area while the building official’s responsibilities do not include the requirement for knowledge of the federal law but only the law affecting local construction; nor is the building official acting in the owner’s behalf.



But enough of this banter, brudgers.  I think we had this discussion before.  It’s obvious I won’t be changing your mind.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 7, 2010)

Gene, I've was in a building department when an ADA complaint was filed.

I'll point out that Title III specifically references the issuing of building permits as relevant to the scope of the law.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 8, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Gene, I've was in a building department when an ADA complaint was filed.I'll point out that Title III specifically references the issuing of building permits as relevant to the scope of the law.


Yes, the two words "building" and "permit" are used together twice in the Title III text.  But only as the threshold for when the requriements begin.  It has nothing to do with the building official's role.

*Sec.36.401 New construction.*

_(a) General. _

_(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and © of this section, discrimination for purposes of this part includes a failure to design and construct facilities for first occupancy after January 26, 1993, that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities._

_(2) For purposes of this section, a facility is designed and constructed for first occupancy after January 26, 1993, only --_



_(i) If the last application for a __*building permit*__ or permit extension for the facility is certified to be complete, by a State, County, or local government after January 26, 1992 (or, in those jurisdictions where the government does not certify completion of applications, if the last application for a __*building permit*__ or permit extension for the facility is received by the State, County, or local government after January 26, 1992); and_



_(ii) If the first certificate of occupancy for the facility is issued after January 26, 1993._


----------



## brudgers (Apr 8, 2010)

So if a person doesn't apply for a building permit they don't have to comply with ADA?


----------



## brudgers (Apr 8, 2010)

_TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 _

_Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death._

Adoption of Chapter 11 and ANSI A117.1 despite their non-compliance is both willful and done "under the color of law."


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 8, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> _TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 __Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death._
> 
> Adoption of Chapter 11 and ANSI A117.1 despite their non-compliance is both willful and done "under the color of law."


THAT case has yet to be tried.

I'll leave it to the attorneys for ICC to slug that one out. Only you seem to be under the impression that to use the ICC is a "willful" disregard for civil rights. I'm not an attorney but I'd argue that if the law disregards access altogether or specifically states, “there shall be not required alternate design considerations for those with special needs” - THAT would be willful and done under the color of law. Adopting any measure that affords accessibility is consistent with the ADA whether it is identical, less than, or in excess of the ADA's Design Guidelines (ADAAG) is another matter. The law adopting the IBC is still intent on providing access not disregarding it.

Like I said, I'll let the ICC folks worry about that. Any adoption of the IBC is a good faith effort - not a willful disregard.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 8, 2010)

The DOJ process for certifying codes as ADA compliant has been in place for nearly 20 years.

As posts on this board and the old ICC board point out, many jurisdictions have purposely avoided enforcing ADA and explicitly adopted codes that don't comply with it with full knowledge.

It's not the ICC which has the liability.  It's all those local jurisdictions which have knowingly issued permits to build in violation of ADA.

Essentially, they have granted waivers.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 9, 2010)

And, the DoJ has had in place for nearly 20 years the ability to litigate against any who are in violatino of the ADA.  To date, I'm not aware of any jurisdictaion that is cited for what you're describing.

To quote a famous little old lady, "Where's the beef?"


----------



## JBI (Apr 9, 2010)

@ Paul Sweet - "The main ones that would be lacking are Type B dwelling units, churches, & private clubs."

They're not covered by ADA(AG). Housing requirements are found in HUD regs.

Churches and Private Clubs are covered by Building Codes only (that I'm aware of). Although a strong case could be made for private clubs as providing 'public accomodation'.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 10, 2010)

Gene Boecker  1

Brudgers         0

Citing case law is always a plus, the rest is speculation

Yeah, Im reading this.  Very interesting and informative


----------



## Uncle Bob (Apr 10, 2010)

Local "Authorities Having Jurisdiction" are responsible for enforcing the jurisdiction's adopted codes.

They are not responsible for enforcing Federal Civil laws and/or regulations.

The idea that a jurisdiction's Building Safety Department can be successfully sued for not enforcing civil laws is absured.

It's the same as calling an attorney and telling him you want to sue the city because your neighbor's fence was built on his property. It's a civil matter.

Jurisdictions that adopt the Federal ADAAG as code requirements should and often do add amendments that cover buildings that are not covered by the Federal ADAAG.

In the case stated in the Original Post; the city of Witchita, Kansas has amended their code to include accessibilty requirements for multi-family dwellings and other requirements; that the Federal ADAAG did not cover. 

Example: Witchita, Kansas Municipal Building Codes; Section 18.50.940 (a) Multi-unit dwellings.

States may request that DOJ "Certify their Accessiblity Codes"

http://www.ada.gov/5yearadarpt/vi_certifying.html

Please read;

"The enforcement of state codes is the responsibility of state or local officials – usually through plan reviews and building inspections. The ADA relies on the traditional method of civil rights enforcement through litigation in federal courts.   Local officials do not have the authority to enforce the ADA on behalf of the federal government."

Uncle Bob


----------



## Yikes (Apr 14, 2010)

As an aside to Vegas Paul's original comment, even in multifamily housing, there are often small portions of the project that are subject to ADAAG.

For example, if there is an apartment rental office on the site, then the path of travel from the public right of way and from any visitor parking up to and inside this office would be subject to ADAAG, as this is a "place of business".

If there is a public sidewalk encroachment on the private property, this would also be subject to ADAAG.

If there are amenities such as a mini-shared business office for the resident's use to present a "public face" to their home-based business, or for a neighborhood day-care business on-site, these too would be subject to ADAAG.

Beyond that, areas that are normally intended for use only by residents or their invited guests (or by the owner/managment and their invited guests) are not normally considered "public accomodation".  For example, an apartment building with a central swimming pool that is intended for residents and guests would NOT be subject to ADAAG, in my opinion.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 14, 2010)

Yikes, you're right.  There are areas like the leasing office which need to meet ADAAG since they serve the public.

The swimming pool would not be required to meet ADAAG - just FHA.  However, if the apartment complex decides to allow the pool to be used by the local school for swim lessons or swim tyeam practice, then the ADA woudl kick in.  same concept with tennis courts.  As long as the use is only that by tenanst and guests, it's solely FHA.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 14, 2010)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Yikes, you're right.  There are areas like the leasing office which need to meet ADAAG since they serve the public.The swimming pool would not be required to meet ADAAG - just FHA.  However, if the apartment complex decides to allow the pool to be used by the local school for swim lessons or swim tyeam practice, then the ADA woudl kick in.  same concept with tennis courts.  As long as the use is only that by tenanst and guests, it's solely FHA.


Not true at hotels/motels and timeshares


----------



## brudgers (Apr 14, 2010)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Gene Boecker  1Brudgers         0
> 
> Citing case law is always a plus, the rest is speculation
> 
> Yeah, Im reading this.  Very interesting and informative


ADA claims are often settled out of court.  As I've noted elsewhere, I was involved in addressing a claim while I was behind the counter.  For what it's worth, the municipal Devils with a Tie didn't seem to think that we had immunity (and it wasn't their first rodeo).

It's also important to note that Gene's immunity claim is based on enforcement not adoption.  I suspect that there is as much immunity for adopting a code which allows non-compliance with ADA, as there is immunity for adopting any other law which legalizes civil rights violations (consider the lack of immunity afforded to a city which adopted a law legalizing lynching).

Free speech certainly protects ICC's publication of non-compliant codes.  This should not be considered to provide immunity to a jurisdiction which knowingly adopts codes which violate Federal civil rights law.


----------



## JayHawkInspector (Apr 15, 2010)

The Department of Justice ADA Standards does not contain requirements for multi-family dwellings (private homes).  Unless a multifamily unit is a “public accommodation” such as a homeless shelter, group home, or transient lodging it would not be “covered by title III of the ADA.  However multifamily facilities that are constructed by, for or on behalf of, or for the use of a state or local government, e.g. public housing would be covered by title II of the ADA.  A title II covered entity can use the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (which also is the standard for facilities receiving Federal funding) which does contain provisions for residential units.  Transient lodging facilities are covered by Section 9 of the ADA Standards. The Federal Fair Housing Act applies to certain multi-family facilities, check out www.fairhousingfirst.org for more information.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 15, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Not true at hotels/motels and timeshares


Hotels and motels are not multi-family "dwelings" - unless they are extended stay facilities. In which case they are covered by the FHA regs as well.

In addition to the comment posted by JayhawkInspector, I forgot to mention that if the multi-family facility uses federal monies as part of it's funding, it is subject to Section 508 which also requires compliance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). While the current ADAAG is based on the 1986 ANSI A117.1, the UFAS is based on the 1968 A117.1 - talk about old regs!. Although it contains regs on residential, it's still seriously out of date and conflicts with other federal provisions for accesibilty. It is also possible to use the 2004 ADA-ABA regs if you secure prior approval from the funding federal agency since the regs allow for "comparable" requirements.

And to brudgers continuing comments; you (and the local legal eagles to whom you refer) still seem to be the only one(s) who thinks that the ICC with A117.1 is a violation of the federal law. I don't even hear that from the DoJ. In fact I hear the opposite. It is often less expensive to settle a claim than to adjudicate it. That doesn't mean that the settlement is right - except on a financial basis - since both parties usually include statements that there is no admission of guilt on either part. Slip and fall cases are typical situations where this happens all the time. Simply because money exchanges hands doesn't imply anything except an economic decision.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 15, 2010)

Hotels, motels, inns, and other places of lodging designed and constructed after January 26,1993 must comply with the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Common ADA Problems at Newly Constructed Lodging Facilities

http://www.ada.gov/comhotel.pdf

All other multi-family must comply with the Fair Housing Guidelines

http://www.huduser.org/portal/public...G/fairfull.pdf


----------



## brudgers (Apr 15, 2010)

Stair handrails in A117.1 do not comply with ADAAG.  A117.1 allows less accessibility  at sinks and lavatories.

The IBC's blanket exemption of group U structures from  is a contrary to ADAAG.  The exemption of walk-in coolers is contrary to ADAAG.  The exemption of electrical and communication rooms is contrary to ADAAG (as we discussed at length) as is the exemption of raised security areas.  The exemption of multiple single user toilet rooms is also inconsistent with ADAAG.

As you point out, DOJ is not really interested in enforcing ADAAG.  That was the whole rational behind, "let's rewrite ADAAG to match the building code."  They'd rather pretend that A117.1 is a safe harbor.


----------

