# Non-ADA ramp at main entrance



## Algis (Aug 3, 2021)

Hi,

We have a multiple dwelling NYC co-op residential building (building ~1927) and the main entry doors (which include a step up from street level) open to a vestibule that has three 7" steps down (total of 21" from upper to lower).  The three treads are approx 15" wide and the vestibule is approx 12" long  (there is an approx 6' landing each side of the wide set of steps).   The treads have a rise:run of 7":12.5"

We would like to install a ~30 deg ramp to one side of the stair to allow for those with strollers or wheel chairs to make it up and down more easily, but are aware that the ramp will not be ADA compliant.   

Can someone point me to a code that points out that we can do such a thing?  Or if there are some criteria we would need to comply to?  Perhaps OHSA?

New to this forum, and tried searching for a discussion that pertains to this, but could not find - if it exists, please point me to it.


----------



## steveray (Aug 3, 2021)

Not likely to be able to do what you want to do....


----------



## tbz (Aug 3, 2021)

Algis said:


> Hi,
> 
> We have a multiple dwelling NYC co-op residential building (building ~1927) and the main entry doors (which include a step up from street level) open to a vestibule that has three 7" steps down (total of 21" from upper to lower).  The three treads are approx 15" wide and the vestibule is approx 12" long  (there is an approx 6' landing each side of the wide set of steps).   The treads have a rise:run of 7":12.5"
> 
> ...


1st Welcome to the site, even if it is just for one question.

I will assume your building has a compliant ADA entrance else were in the building.

Next, The 2014 NYC BC under section 1010.2 Slope requires Ramps that are part of the Designated M.O.E. to be no more than 1" of Rise in 12" of run or 1:12.  For other non-M.O.E. pedestrian ramps they allow 1" of rise in 8 inches of run which is 1.5" of rise in 12" of run.  

You are wanting a ramp that is 7" of Rise in 12-1/2" of Run, or More than 3 times more slope than allowed.

I doubt it will fly with the building department and would more than likely be a very big slip and slide during those NYC ICE days. 

2014 NYC Building code Link 1010.2 Slope


----------



## Algis (Aug 3, 2021)

Thank you both - this is very clear.  And a good practical point: an icy slope is no fun if you want to stay out of court..


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 5, 2021)

how much risk are you willing to expose yourself to?
Better to invest in a lift.


----------



## redeyedfly (Aug 5, 2021)

I don't know the NY Building code but your building is likely not required to meet ADA unless it has public spaces (your description doesn't sound like it).  It isn't covered under FHA either since it was built prior to 1991.  

Under IBC you can build a ramp to whatever slope you want if it isn't part of the MOE.    Nothing prohibits paving a slope with concrete.  

But I don't know if there are other NY requirements that may apply.


----------



## Algis (Aug 5, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> I don't know the NY Building code but your building is likely not required to meet ADA unless it has public spaces (your description doesn't sound like it).  It isn't covered under FHA either since it was built prior to 1991.
> 
> Under IBC you can build a ramp to whatever slope you want if it isn't part of the MOE.    Nothing prohibits paving a slope with concrete.
> 
> But I don't know if there are other NY requirements that may apply.


Correct - it does not meet ADA at present (it was built in 1927 and only has steps at the main entrance).  It is used as a multiple family dwelling and is managed by a corporation, so I think ADA would apply to common areas if we were to make any significant modification.


----------



## redeyedfly (Aug 5, 2021)

Algis said:


> Correct - it does not meet ADA at present (it was built in 1927 and only has steps at the main entrance).  It is used as a multiple family dwelling and is managed by a corporation, so I think ADA would apply to common areas if we were to make any significant modification.


ADA would only apply if non-residents could rent out the common areas.  Residents and guests of residents using the common areas does not make them public spaces covered under ADA.  Ownership is not relevant to ADA unless it is a governmental agency that owns the property.


----------



## steveray (Aug 6, 2021)

ADA doesn't do "visitable"?


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 6, 2021)

Algis said:


> Correct - it does not meet ADA at present (it was built in 1927 and only has steps at the main entrance).  It is used as a multiple family dwelling and is managed by a corporation, so I think ADA would apply to common areas if we were to make any significant modification.


Yes, rental office, community room, etc.


----------



## redeyedfly (Aug 6, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> Yes, rental office, community room, etc.


Not the community room unless it is open to the public. but yes to the rental office.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 6, 2021)

Several switch backs going the other way with platforms might work, play with a few drawings and see if you can get there.


----------



## tbz (Aug 8, 2021)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Several switch backs going the other way with platforms might work, play with a few drawings and see if you can get there.


PC,

Spending 20 plus years working on entrance renovations on older buildings in NYC, I highly doubt there is even close to enough room for 21 feet of ramp decent plus the 5 foot landings, based on the posted information.  Manhattan real-estate is a premium and older buildings left very little room on the exterior.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 8, 2021)

Question:  I know in NYC they call them "apartments", but isn't a co-op residential building really more like "condominiums" where the tenants own their own unit, plus a prorated portion of the common areas, and there really is no rental office or other place of business?  
If the only people visiting the apartments are residents, their guests, and property maintenance people, and if prospective future tenants do their business through an (offsite) real estate broker, then this would be private housing, not subject to the federal Americans With Disabilities Act.

(Just in case the OP was using "ADA" as slang for "all things related to accessibility", keep in mind that there may be other applicable accessibility regulations besides ADA.)


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 9, 2021)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/condo-vs-co-op-know-the-differences-before-buying-one/2018/01/30/804e7bd6-faf5-11e7-ad8c-ecbb62019393_story.html
		


"Many people confuse condos with co-ops, thinking they are interchangeable. A condo is a private residence in a multiunit structure that includes ownership of commonly used property. A co-op is also a multiunit building, but that’s where the similarities end. A co-op owner has an interest or share in the entire building and a contract or lease that allows the owner to occupy a unit. While a condo owner owns a unit, a co-op owner does not own the unit."

I don't know how or if this would affect ADA compliance.  The Fair Housing amendments probably wouldn't apply since the building was first occupied decades before they were adopted.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 9, 2021)

Paul, thanks so much for that clarification - - very helpful!  
In regards to ADA, whether it is a co-op or a condo, the tenants are owners of a portion of the building, and therefore it is unlikely that any office in a 100% residential occupancy building is intended to be open to the public.  Under that scenario, my previous comment would still apply:
_If the only people visiting the apartments are residents, their guests, and property maintenance people, and if prospective future tenants do their business through an (offsite) real estate broker, then this would be private housing, not subject to the federal Americans With Disabilities Act._


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 9, 2021)

The code doesn't care about ownership. Condos, co-ops and apartments are both R2 occupances.

Doesn't the rental office have an employee that may not live there that could be disabled?


----------



## Yikes (Aug 9, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> The code doesn't care about ownership. Condos, co-ops and apartments are both R2 occupances.
> 
> Doesn't the rental office have an employee that may not live there that could be disabled?


My response was predicated on the idea that if the tenants are owners, then maybe they don't even have a traditional rental office.  
Is that a bad assumption?


----------

