Accessible units for Brownstone?
Need some help here with the Building code. Working on a full renovation of an existing 2-family brownstone with the first floor 7 steps above the sidewalk. According to the architect even though we are keeping the front entry vestibule (with 34″ wide door) and the apartment entry doors at 34″ we are required to…
Need some help here with the Building code.
Working on a full renovation of an existing 2-family brownstone with the first floor 7 steps above the sidewalk.
According to the architect even though we are keeping the front entry vestibule (with 34″ wide door) and the apartment entry doors at 34″ we are required to meet all of the requirements for an Accessible Unit (Section BC 1107)
Which basically includes a handicap size toilet and SUPER wide hallways.
Not to mention 36″ wide doors for the bathrooms and bedrooms.
This code change apparently goes into effect tomorrow (July 1st, 2008).
Does this make sense to anyone else?
Is this true and if so, doesn’t it make a residence feel more like an institution – or at least like a cavern?
With Space at a premium here, it seems to me that the code should be relative to the environment.
We are also currently being evaluated for landmark, which would make adding a ramp to the front a conflict of interests. Not that we would be required to add this at the time of renovation, but if the apartment is supposed to be accessible, then the intent would be that it could be added, even if it means destroying the 100 year old front vestibule….
Any thoughts here?
Sorry in the above answer I forgot to mention — new code has nothing to do with this case. As an existing building renovation it could be reviewed under old code, so the only handicap accessibility law that applies to the property in that case is Local Law 58. As a two family, it’s exempt from LL58, so no handicap accessibility laws apply to the project whatsoever.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s a bad idea to have a nice size bathroom or anything…
Under the new code,a one or two family detached residence is exempt, but a one or two family attached building is considered an R-3 use under those regulations mentioned above. It’s only a slight difference: again, existing construction is exempt, but the ground floor unit of a two family unit would be required to be adaptable if on the ground level. If not on grade and not fitted with an elevator, a two family building would be exempt.
Here’s the new building code.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/cc_chapter11.pdf
Look at 1103.2.11 – do you fall under R-1.
I’m a little confused by this.
maybe smokychimp can decipher
My statement isn’t misleading. According to Local Law 58 there is no requirement in an existing building to retrofit to meet the law’s standards unless it changes use, or changes occupancy. 1 and 2 family buildings are exempt from ADA requirements entirely, and 3 family are also exempt as long as the proposed work is less than 50% of the building’s replacement value (there is an exception if work involves new plumbing fixtures on an already accessible route, even though other work would be exempt). Finally, even when it’s required, LL 58 is waived when technically impossible, such an exterior ramp that would block an existing fire route.
So, it seems that if we are a 2-family, then we should not have to meet the guidelines?
What is not clear is that if everything is new, then we might….
Its just a problem because, as 4:37 posts “considerable expense” is a BIG problem.
We started at $150k and now we are close to $250k – and we were planning on re-using all of the original doors, but if we have to meet code then we lose all of that “value”.
It also means that because we don’t have the space in the current design we have to re-develop the entire floor plan. an additional 6 to 8″ on the doors really wreaks havoc with hallways and the design in general.
Its also a gray area because we are keeping the primary load bearing wall thru the middle of the house, but we are replacing all the plaster and lath, so is that new or old?
the current doors in that wall are 30″.
Same goes for the entry doors to the apartments, they are 34″ and because of the stairs and the load bearing wall, we don’t have even 2″ more unless we are going to rebuild the entire load bearing wall – hence the costs just explode…
Anyway – we hope that because we are 2-family it will become moot once we figure out how this applies to our situation.
And thank you to those of you who live in adaptable spaces, and its nice to know that bathrooms and hallways feel spacious, but I would counter that I would rather have room in my bedroom to sit in chair – its much more comfortable than a huge hallway and bathroom – but this an opinion.
Smokychimp…I’m 10:56 and I think you should clarify your statement, cause it’s misleading.
Sure you don’t need to retrofit older buildings to comply, BUT when doing a renovation on a older building, the renovation needs to comply with ADA accessible or adaptable.
Homeowners, when doing a renovation, please find a knowledgable architect to guide you through this.
When doing a renovation:
1 and 2 family – DO NOT need to comply.
3 Family – YES, accessible
Co-ops – YES, Adaptable. (that’s right, when renovating a co-op, you need to make whataver you’re renovating adaptable).
Please keep in mind that you only need to make what you are renovating comply, if you are leaving things alone in certain parts of the house, co-op, you don’t have to change those.
ADA law does not apply in your case. In addition to the correct information that 10:56 has written, it’s important to note that you do not have to retrofit existing buildings to comply with ADA law — only new construction and new fixtures within old buildings. And then, only when it’s technically feasible.
The regulations apply even to old rowhouses? would someone be required to destroy the integrity of the architecture- i.e. ramps- now?
likewise, I did a conversion of a business space to a residential space. Although the entrace to space was up three stairs, I needed to install an accessible pathway to the kitchen and a compliant bathroom.
It turned out nice, but involved widening the existing the hallway at considerable expense.