• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

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

vegas paul

vegas paul

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
495
Location
Salina, KS
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?
 
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.
 
You don't Adopt the Fair Housing guidelines

Fair Housing is the Federal law that covers multihousing.

It is the Law of the Land.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
My recommendation: adopt the FHA requirements into your local code without modification.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

Uncle Bob
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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."
 
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."
Click to expand...
yeh, well THAT certainly wouldn't be in the text. . . . :)
 
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,

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.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top