• 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.

Does community greenhouse, and common grounds of a number of detached dwelling units, need to be ADA accessible?

Ryan Schultz

Ryan Schultz

SAWHORSE
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
283
Location
Madison, WI
The following project has (8) individual detached dwelling units centered around a 'courtyard' type of space.
There is a small (~500sf) community greenhouse/patio that would only be used by the residences of the community.
Per 1103.2.3, am i correct to assume none of the spaces, whether inside or outside, needs to be ADA accessible?
Ownership will be through a condo association.
Thank you.


20240402 - Highland Haven - Pricing Set Page 001.jpg
 
ADA applies to public housing and public-funded housing; you have said this is privately funded.

ADA also applies to business areas of a private housing development, such as a leasing office, a model unit, or to community components that might be made accessible to the general public. If during condo sales, the intent is for a potential condo buyer to be given a tour of these private spaces, or if purchase paperwork will be signed in the common spaces, they might be subject to ADA.

But if the common area spaces are used only be the residents of the community and are not going to be rented to outside parties (example: a wedding party), and touring these components is not an integral part of the sales pitch experience, then ADA probably doesn't apply to those common areas.

Just double checking: sometimes people use the phrase "ADA" as a catch-all term for "all accessibility regulations". But ADA is just one of several accessibility regulations. This question needs to also be reviewed against your local building code and the Fair Housing Act.
 
mtlogcabin said:
HUD Fair Housing may govern here since you have more than 4 units on a site.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but that "4 or more" seems like it's tied to units inside multifamily building. The following quotes, from the Fair Housing Act, seems to hint in that direction...


"The design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act apply to all new multifamily housing consisting of four or more dwelling units."

"Covered multifamily dwellings are:
1. all dwelling units in buildings containing four or more dwelling units if such buildings have one or more elevators, and
2. all ground floor dwelling units in other buildings containing four or more units."
 
The greenhouse and patio are a separate structure. From the Wisconsin building code (per UpCodes):

1103.1 Where Required​


Sites, buildings, structures, facilities, elements and spaces, temporary or permanent, shall be accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Click to expand...

What use group/occupancy classification have you applied to this greenhouse structure? Does this exception apply?

1103.2.4 Utility Buildings​


Group U occupancies are not required to comply with this chapter other than the following:
  1. In agricultural buildings, access is required to paved work areas and areas open to the general public.
  2. Private garages or carports that contain required accessible parking.
Click to expand...

Per section 312.1, greenhouses are classified as Use Group U. However, where a greenhouse is open to multiple families, it could (and under the ADA IMHO should) be argued that it is open to the public and is therefore not exempt. Unfortunately, the code does not define either "public" nor "general public." A common greenhouse for the use of eight families is obviously more than an accessory structure to a single-family residence, yet it is arguably not open to the "general" public.

Personally, I think it should be accessible but I have a long history of being an accessibility advocate. In general, I think the approach should be to start with the assumption that all buildings and facilities are required to be accessible unless you can find a specific exception that clearly says otherwise. It constantly amazes me that more than 30 years after the ADA became federal law, many architects still begin with the assumption that accessibility is not required, and then wonder if there's something in the code that says otherwise. That's the wrong approach.
 
Interesting....Can an IRC accessory structure be accessory to more than one IRC building........Hmmmmmmm.......And if that is the case, why are you in Ch. 11 at all?
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
However, where a greenhouse is open to multiple families, it could (and under the ADA IMHO should) be argued that it is open to the public and is therefore not exempt. Unfortunately, the code does not define either "public" nor "general public."
Click to expand...
There is no argument that this is covered under the ADA. It is very clearly and obviously private. You can't walk off the street and use their greenhouse. It isn't close to any of the 12 categories in the ADA.
I agree that the designer should design spaces as accessible as possible but I don't think the accessibility requirements need further expansion by law.
 
Ryan Schultz said:
I could be wrong, but that "4 or more" seems like it's tied to units inside multifamily building. The following quotes, from the Fair Housing Act, seems to hint in that direction...
Click to expand...
I agree, however our state Fair Housing watchdog has determined their rules apply to the number of units on a single piece of property. I would permit what you have under the IRC since Fair Housing does not ask for copies of our residential monthly reports
 
mtlogcabin said:
I agree, however our state Fair Housing watchdog has determined their rules apply to the number of units on a single piece of property. I would permit what you have under the IRC since Fair Housing does not ask for copies of our residential monthly reports
Click to expand...
HUD and the US Dept. of Justice would disagree with your state watchdog regarding detached units. The units have to be attached in order to be considered as covered under FHA. Here's the excerpt from the HUD/DOJ Q&A joint statement dated 4/20/2013:
1723829853416.png​
 
redeyedfly said:
There is no argument that this is covered under the ADA. It is very clearly and obviously private. You can't walk off the street and use their greenhouse. It isn't close to any of the 12 categories in the ADA.
Click to expand...

redeyedfly said:
Where does the IBC require that? 1103.2.3 specifically exempts this.
Click to expand...

Where does Chapter 11 use the word private?
 
Ryan Schultz said:
The following project has (8) individual detached dwelling units centered around a 'courtyard' type of space.
There is a small (~500sf) community greenhouse/patio that would only be used by the residences of the community.
Per 1103.2.3, am i correct to assume none of the spaces, whether inside or outside, needs to be ADA accessible?
Ownership will be through a condo association.
Thank you.


View attachment 14105
Click to expand...
The caveat is: will the HOA be publicly renting these unit as vacation rentals. I assume they are all single story free standing residential dwellings. If they are vacation rentals then under the ADA they would need to be accessible like a hotel is. If not than ADA does not apply to privately constructed dwellings. The only other thing is the HOA will need to have in their policies and regulations the allowance for reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. The person with the disability could ask for pets or a lift. Either way they have to be allowed to do something to fit their needs and they would have to pay for it. But the HOA cannot obstruct or dismiss that request.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top