Home
Client Login

New NYC Construction Codes Signed into Law

On July 3, 2007, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg signed the new New York City Construction Codes into law. The new codes, which go into effect July 1, 2008, have been in the works for several years and are based on the 2003 version of the International Building Code and the 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1 Stan­dard on Accessible and Useable Buildings and Facilities. Major updates to the prior New York City building code ocurred in 1968 and 1938.
According to a report issued by the NYC Department of Build­ings, the new provisions in the code will bring New York City into sync with Federal mandates that address the needs of people with disabilities. “At one point in time, the city was at the fore­front of accessibility standards, but the accessibility regulations in the current building code have not been updated since 1987. Since that time, the rest of the country has surpassed New York City, especially with the passage of Federal laws such as the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.”
At a bill signing ceremony, Bloomberg said, “This bill delivers on a campaign promise I made in 2001 to update the current building code, which was last revised comprehensively in 1968. Because building codes govern a criti­cal part of the City’s infrastructure, it is essen­tial that the minimum standards they establish mirror the very latest in design and construction technology. [The new codes] will enhance safety by mandating sprinklers in more buildings, re­quiring fire alarms in more occupancies, updating structural integrity requirements, and improving construction safety.” The mayor noted the new codes will be reviewed every three years.
The conflicts between the older New York City laws and the current Federal laws have led to confusion among professionals and the public as to the applicability of various standards and the ability to enforce them. The report notes that to resolve conflicts and ensure dignified access to buildings for people with disabilities, the code:
• Includes most requirements found in the cur­rent Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
• Provides specifications that are necessary for the installation of assistive listening systems.
• Harmonizes accessibility requirements of the current local law and federal law that are applicable to occupancies containing dwelling and sleeping units.
• Provides innovative and flexible solutions to address the technical and accessibility requirements of toilet and bathing facilities in multiple dwelling residential occupancies.
• Allows Limited-Use/Limited-Application (LULA) elevators, a type of vertical transportation that is safer and more accessible than a vertical wheelchair lift, in non-residential buildings.

Court Says ATMs Are Covered by the ADA

A federal court judge has denied the claim by the largest independent owner/operator of ATMs in the country that ATMs are not covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In the case Massachusetts, et al v. E*Trade Access, Inc. et al, Judge Morris E. Lasker, of the US District Court, District of Massachusetts, denied E*Trade/Cardtronics motion for summary judgment regarding its claim that the ADA encompasses only the construction of facilities for occupancy and does not include devices, such as ATMs, that might later be affixed to such facilities.
In its arguments, Cardtronics, which acquired the E*Trade ATM business in 2004, noted that an ATM is “manufactured” rather than “constructed” and is “used” rather than “occupied.” In his analysis, Judge Lasker stated, “The Defendants submit that the events of first occupancy and obtaining building permits clearly do not apply to ATM construction and installation, and that terrain affects only the design of a building, not the design of an ATM.” The judge disagreed with Cardtronics’ interpretation. He stated that “… relevant regulations and guidelines issued by [the Department of Justice] seem to clearly establish that built-in ATMs are facilities covered by the new construction mandate.
The Defendants present no evidence suggesting that any ATMs at issue in this case are moveable structures not contemplated during the building process, as was the case with the display racks at issue in Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition [v. Too (Delaware), Inc.]” case. The judge agreed that the Plaintiffs’ suggested modification to the Cardtronics’ policies – allowing customers who are blind to use accessible ATMs operated by other companies without a surcharge – “is generally reasonable.” He denied the Plaintiff’s motion on summary judgment regarding the alleged violation of Cardtronics’ reasonable modification mandate.
“The record in this case establishes that ATMs with voice-guidance technology are accessible to and independently usable by the blind. This court cannot require the Defendants to employ voice-guidance technology, as such technology is not required by the [Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines].” He noted that the burden now shifts to the Defendants to show that “the suggested modification would fundamentally alter the nature of their electronic banks services.”

 

Find out how Universal Designers & Consultants Inc. can help you.