• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

10 SFR homes on 1 lot as rental units & Accessibility

Joe.B said:
Health and Safety Code commencing with section 19952
CBC 1.9.1.2.1, 1.9.1.2.2, 1.9.1.2.3
Click to expand...
I also don't see where OP discussed that this is public housing. I guess he said he cannot confirm it or not. If it's not for public use then I don't believe those CBC sections apply either. If they are public though then, yes, he does have accessibility requirements.
 
ADAguy said:
Wasn't it initially stated that these were all on the same lot? Common interest development?
Click to expand...
Oh. My mind was thinking a development, not 10 single families on the same lot, but in order for ADA and CBC 1.9.1.2 (if this is even in CA) to apply there has to be a public accommodation. If these are long term rentals and there is no leasing office then I don't see where a public accommodation is being provided. With the information provided and assuming it's long-term rentals like apartments, I do not believe the ADA applies anywhere on site. There is no requirement to make sidewalks accessible, mailboxes, etc, if Title II or Title III do not apply.

I do find it odd that 10 homes are on the same lot if these are being leased out like apartments though. If this is being run as short term rentals like vacation cabins or a hotel then there is definitely goods or services being offered making it a public accommodation.

I think OP needs to provide more information in order to get a solid answer though.
 
OP said they are 4-story rental units in Florida.

The height puts them into the IBC group R-3. IBC 1103.2.3 says: "Detached one- and two-family dwellings, their accessory structures and their associated sites and facilities are not required to comply with this chapter."

If they are for short-term rental then they could be considered as "public accommodations" and might be subject to Title III of ADA. It will probably take an accessibility lawsuit to determine whether they are or not.
 
Correct, this conversation started as a hypothetical. In response I said "if this were in CA" to extend the hypothetical. Some of the responses have been specifically in regards to CA requirements. Talking purely hypothetical has great potential for conversation, but can often lead down one rabbit hole or another.
 
Joe.B said:
Correct, this conversation started as a hypothetical. In response I said "if this were in CA" to extend the hypothetical. Some of the responses have been specifically in regards to CA requirements. Talking purely hypothetical has great potential for conversation, but can often lead down one rabbit hole or another.
Click to expand...
So, its actually not hypothetical. One of the BCOs in another Florida municipality reached out to me.
 
Local zoning apparently allows 10 SFR homes on one lot.

I don't think anyone has come up with a building code requirement for the homes to be accessible, except possibly if one is used as a model home.

Whether ADA Title 3 comes into play if they are short-term rental might have to be settled by somebody suing the developer.
 
A model townhome unit (for show during construction) would need to provide some public accommodations, correct?
Would the ground floor bathroom, kitchen, doors, etc. need to meet ADAAG standards? Could a portable/accessible bathroom be provided onsite for people needing accessibility provisions?

The unit does not have to be Type B under normal circumstances as it is multi-story with no elevator access (IBC Section 1107.7.2), so it is not likely to be designed/built with accessibility in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top