# unreasonable hardship



## paul bishop (Jun 11, 2018)

has anybody ever heard of an unreasonable hardship application being denied by an AHJ?  are there any jurisdictions that actually make a determination upon receiving an UR application, or do they all just accept them, stamp them approved and then put them in their file like all the jurisdictions i have ever dealt with?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 11, 2018)

What is an unreasonable hardship? what does it pertain to?


----------



## paul bishop (Jun 11, 2018)

a determination of unreasonable hardship can be applied for if the cost of path of travel upgrades (areas serving an area of alteration but not included within the area of alteration such as restrooms, drinking fountains, etc.) exceeds 20% of the project valuation.  the application can be made by the owner, architect or contractor and i have always seen the building department just rubber stamp them and throw them in the project file.


----------



## cda (Jun 11, 2018)

Welcome 



Must be a ahj that rubber stamps other stuff


----------



## mark handler (Jun 11, 2018)

paul bishop said:


> has anybody ever heard of an unreasonable hardship application being denied by an AHJ?  are there any jurisdictions that actually make a determination upon receiving an UR application, or do they all just accept them, stamp them approved and then put them in their file like all the jurisdictions i have ever dealt with?


Hi Paul
I have denied two.
Exagerated values. A thousand dollars for one sign,,, no way.

R99C California Disabled Parking Space Sign - 12x24  $19.15
http://www.stopsignsandmore.com/p-4...sidzVWqhGUWdAWEfxG581dHsBWAbWbZ4aAv9vEALw_wcB


----------



## Msradell (Jun 11, 2018)

I seen to go both ways. It certainly isn't a rubberstamp than anything I've been involved with. I think it's it depends on what percentage of the exemption is being applied for. Applying for an exemption when the cost is 22% of $100,000 project is probably going to not be approved but more than likely 22% of $1 million project would be. Looking at low costs, I seen cases where 50% of a $10,000 project wasn't exempted. It depends an awful lot on the circumstances of what's involved, the total cost of the project and the resources of the project owner.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 12, 2018)

Were lucky here in PA because we are not allowed to make that decision. There is a state board for that.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 12, 2018)

paul bishop said:


> a determination of unreasonable hardship can be applied for if the cost of path of travel upgrades (areas serving an area of alteration but not included within the area of alteration such as restrooms, drinking fountains, etc.) exceeds 20% of the project valuation.  the application can be made by the owner, architect or contractor and i have always seen the building department just rubber stamp them and throw them in the project file.


Never heard of such a thing. 20% may not provide enough funds to be 100% compliant but you get what you can get. We require the 20% cost start with the parking space and work your way into the building. If all we get is a paved parking space and no ramp then that is all we get with that remodel and we get the ramp on the next upgrade.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 12, 2018)

Hi Paul, just joining us?
We turn them (T-II's) down all the time.
As to T-III's, it depends; most don't want to open their books to prove hardship, especially if they have been in business since 1947 (smiling).


----------



## ICE (Jun 12, 2018)

My AHJ bases the cost of the plan check and permit on the valuation.  The valuation is provided by the applicant.  That raises the obvious question as to what the valuation should be as opposed to what is given.


----------



## JCraver (Jun 12, 2018)

Rick18071 said:


> Were lucky here in PA because we are not allowed to make that decision. There is a state board for that.



We're not allowed to make it either - our State code doesn't even have a provision for it.  There is "technically infeasible", but the code is specific where it can be applied. 

I sure would not want to be the guy who signs off on an "unreasonable hardship" and then has to argue the decision in front of the attorney general.


----------



## Yikes (Jun 18, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Hi Paul, just joining us?
> We turn them (T-II's) down all the time.
> As to T-III's, it depends; most don't want to open their books to prove hardship, especially if they have been in business since 1947 (smiling).



Thank you ADAguy for this important clarification.  

Title II (government buildings and government funded work) has effectively no provision for "unreasonable hardship".  It DOES have provision for equivalent program facilitation within a reasonable distance of the subject site.  I think there is a very limited exception where site geography makes something structurally infeasible.  But these days, almost anything is structurally feasible if you throw enough money at it.

Title III (non-government public accommodations) have unreasonable hardship provisions.


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Jun 25, 2018)

We don't call it "unreasonable hardship".  We call it the "disproportionality exception" and I don't require a formal application but I do start with a simple cost analysis.  Yes, I do scrutinize the values given and will demand an itemized list of materials and labor if those numbers are exaggerated.  
And just like mtlogcabin made reference to, we do expect that there be some expenditure of money towards ADA improvements in accordance with a list of priorities.  That list of priorities follows immediately after the text related to the costs associated with alterations.  See 2010 ADA Section 35.151


----------

