HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB060221JUN-67-246 t1?46*,-''.*-.-.'.P.W/@2o
v
wor
o
)s
\\
-t
fSO AglL00F srl'lfootdbuCgrda.
15Fr
f650 F a$u!0ooftruhdilrgcdmdEDufil.tn F lr {libo ilr.t rw|'l booic L ddrl b rrt ,cJd.irdrl c}qmsUJ hffto (Hdts Zto ro(h & i|aria sil,rdcnl).€'o fu rtwdrrg-Di-l3rdrlrnF.ucririlr, adr6.
tf!o|ho! F tnE! rnow r|lF'u, lndoFint hF,* a.1drtrnt't|nlll rEt20 Filnhadr.Gloh&rCa{frkp|orrncrtl edr6,
.gooitE Ff|['r3b rrlrhr adttrc,€, hdEping, hnct crdrturilgr*,Ggl0o fu |tr,l$.r b S,r &a0t u9ftrid by tliln'rE stcl s tf*
rs|enFlvitrbrt.
ibF.c
Applicatbn fbr Decign Rcview
OFrtnrt d Csrnnty DGdoF.rrt7tBrdrtutllRa4br,ffi el6stt: r?0..f9:ttt i,c ItO{t93.52
HExrir.d,f,Lera
Crn.r.| ltrtbarrticlrt
^f
mtclt rqfarhg d-gn rwbf .|rd nrir rpponl pi' tr stbml! rg r Duift'|e F|rn lpf&ccUoft. trcasG
rdrt b ttic rffil rrsisialr lk l|r giltfutr.!Fo€l th] tE rt0ttit t A| rgfamn fur Dc|gn r.q.wcl|ln br Elltld {df il .CSfd hffid b tul,rd bt ||E gmrnrily Dacbdrrt Dcp.trm- t.he
DqtG 'nry eb nd lD E ||'rtrt tr gr t*r anEr n{/a dt Pt.nring rnd E rirrurFEi csiln8o.'.D*! trrlt r0F.rd f.F. *r HE||| Fa* f h- rd crtnrtbn cnnrnc ryllrln
ffi::fi,,* AwE!.+ "trn p, t tr,,.D'' *ta tx, r.ttFrr-N V6fu:aure
Lodion ' u* fhop6d! r*.,dc--rci-- gidluicor! z -(A*z-Qg \/A+.
thficdrdcrs lffie 4*^4ft1J.@lT ,V^'',
trrdtfo,: ?h4?'ntlrt?.7 (OfidE eb6. lrrora9?oP9€6rofor pcrccl rr.)
tlxr*sz&o -- - ,-.
i|lr(rrdtun (irt
lr||l*
Ounslr)s3r*rn{r)!
HrilngHrtrs:
lypcof frdct.d tce:
tr -ggnsJ{ csntnna*ur
El $ew€arEtu.tto|r' ' lduon
O fiitufCE$ct(mrHfiily/omqit)
tr tlherAftdtorl
(sin4d.tnryldt/glts)
tr Ch.rBt' to A6.!t€.t Rafla
tI S.p.rrlql F{r.i
I|.|no of ftfc..rtt
TOTFTL P, 02
, FRO| ;,Acc.ssible Erut r€ffEnts lnb FFD( 1'lo. : 1
T
* zwE 11:@Fr Pla
ACCTE!i56 lis L E tF NiWE :?S8\S nfi F9\3'!i-S, E nC {| -
'''i i' l 'r\' i:r'i :1i- r\'!l:iir-'
April4.2006
Edc Eerhgause
31()9w€cl son $rtet
f z)8
lfiilreryols, UN 54110
l-erry Esl(wiul
P.O. Bo(449
Eduvarlg, @ E1tr!2
DcarEdcand Lany,
Per ycr pqreot I trsw pfEp$ed sorns inbflnatitn br you dahn b g8ining yar locel
gov.rment sppro\ral b €xp$d your proPerf h Vail, Cobratlo b ammmodae Edc's
brotEr u,ho ir a q.ra*iplcgb end urcs t u,h*lEir. I an a|so avalable b meet $dror
tail( with your local cficials, il you neuts like.
I bclcnc hc Clty of Val b tlcfttud b arcnd tuir polidcs b Clott yott b hcruasc lhc
dze of the gnrage b acemmodab a wr wi0r a trydraulic utrcdshair lift and b increesc
tf|e e$rarc totrg3 of he tD||sG to sllfl for Ol9 inilElbdo3t of an elevator, widen
hafrnrays, and h ottrr ways rnd<c it acceaeible b a Porson who useg an electric
wheelchdr. This is specified in tte Anrericans wilh Disalrilitics Ad (ADA), sthidr bccntne
effcctive h 199L The ADA is a Unr'ted States dvil tights law |hat ptotects pcqlc wih
<lis$mias trowr discdminatbn.
First, belrrr arc a ccrple of d€ftiti.ms hd will ltp w'th datificalirn:
OiraDi{imeam wih te3peci b an indivitual, a phFical or mental irpaimcnt
that sr$stan[ially fimfs one or nrore of tle mjor k'ie adivitbs of sucft indrUual...Fctul Rqisfrlr P.tt sti Suffitt A - Gcrrt,ti
Saffin 35. 104 D€ft?//aiu'e W 367 17
tufficEn&ymerlta-
(1) Any stab or local gpvetnment
tuderd RqisterFarl 35 Sulpart A - @rcf€,l
Seclicr 35.lof Definilions page 35717
People u,fio rF6 r'il€slcftIrs afE omgidot€d psople with disSlfifbt.
Folouring b an crryt frcm the ADA that pertailF to the rcquirementr qf publb €ntilies.
Piease nole tre lbm ln bold, ti,hich ltrbE ttat prilic qrlilba must dlage thcir poDdes
to eccommodde a per$on wth a dFabniv.
DEPARTMHTITOF'USTICE
Oficcof thc AtbmcyCorsd
2tCBPrtRT35
[OrdrNo. ]
Nodissfuuimtion o tbo Basb dDirbility in Suo ard Local Govcrrru Scrviccs
AGENCY: Doprtncn of lu*ir:o.
5504 HIU.S|DE COURT t ED|NA, MN SS439- | 2 I I
f952) 9d48100 . FAX (952) 9r''Ll98t r horre007@rc.umn.edu
FRo{ .: Accessible En\,r rsrEnts lL FAX Nt]. : 1
SETTLEIIENT AGREEI'ENT BETMEN
THE UTTIITED STATES OF ATERICA
AND
TI€ CITY OF JACKSON TFSISSPPI
DEPARTUENT OF Jt,STrcE OOXPL/UNT IIIUTBER 20.141-96
6 M6 1t:63Ait n
Ttir mdter wes initistcd by a cunplaint filed undcr titb II of thc Amcricrns with
Diubilitiar Act CADA"), 42 U.S.C, $0 l2t3l-12134, with the Unircd Staes Deputment
ofJustice ("Depdmed ofJusticC) againrt thc Ciry ofJackso4 Mssissippi Thc
complain was received by the Civil Rights Division of rhc Departmcm of lustir:e, urd€r
the authcity of titlc II oftbc ADA and itr implcnrcoring agulrtioa 28 C.F.R. Part 33,
Subprt F. the neprtoeot of Justice inrrcstigaed this complaint, sd concluded tlrat the
City of Jackson violated titlc II of thp ADA by mg.siog io discriminarory practiccs in
rcgard o a aning pdition, The oorylainantr - developcrs wb plenncd to build a mcrtral
heelth crisis intarrention centcr, aud who rcquirud a parcol of property to be re-zmed
ftom an indu$rid to r commcrcid cla$$ification - allcge that the Ci,ty of Jackson's denid
ofthcir zodng petition was a violatior ofthe ADA.
The Dcporupni of .ftrstice is authorized utd€r title II ud itr funplcmenti4g regulations to
irwestigate rhe allegafiom of tbe cmptain in rhis matter, and if possible, to lqoriate and
eeorre voluntary complirnce agre€ments Furthennore, the Attomry CienetlJ is
uttbodzed rndcr 42 U.S.C. $ I2133, io bring a civil ection to cnfrroc title II of the ADA
if tlre Dcprtmcot of lu*ice fails to scanre voluutary corryliance prrnrnt to Subpsrt F.
In consideration of thc tcrma of this Agrccmmt as s€t forth below, tha Attorncy Crneral
sgt€€s to no[ udertake firtler iovestigCio or to file civil srit in this matter.
The plrtie$ to this Agrecncm arrc the Unired Swes of Anerica ald thc City of Jackson,
Misrissippi.
In tfe imercts of woidiag the corts of litigdior and sccuring colpliancc by roluntary
mcans, tbe paties hercby rgrcc as follonn:
l. Tho City of Jac*soo, Milrissippi, is a public cntity corrcrcd by title II of thc ADA as
defincd in tho ADA and the Departoem of rusticcb regulatirn impleurenting title Ir. 42
U.S.C. $ l2l3l(r) 2t C.F.R 35.104. Tirh tr of,rhe AIIA prohibits dieabiliry
disqimimtioo in ell activiticc of Jrtc ard local govrnncm cditie& Trtle tr's gerral
proldbftin ondiscriniaatbn poviihsthr*no qrnlified idividul with adisability
shall, by rearm ofnrc*r disabilfty, bG Excludod from partioipnion in or be dcoicd the
bonefits of tbc servicct, progrns, a activitie'r of a public entity, a bc s$joctcd to
dirsinin*ion by ray ofi enily.- 42 u.s.c. $ 12132. Zoning docisims, as activities of
a pr$lic cnity, reoovered by &bII's noc-dirqiminaio o,urdac,
FR10'l ;Acccssible Erw i rq-rEnts lrl FAX Ml. : t eE re 11r04tr1 P3
2. Thc objea ofthis Sctlcmaor Agreerncnt is rhc docision ofthc City Cotrncil, in its
gpacity ar a zonilg board, to dcny a petilion (Numbcr 33?4) ro rc-zoDe a parcet land.
Tbe pclilioo€lr oumcd two contiguous parccb of lan4 one of wbioh war zinoa ror
cmrocrcirl us, ard tlrc othcr wtich ryar zorrcd forirdusriat urc. Thc petliorcrs
rmond€d to oonsilruct r facilityon thr property: rnd to lcesc it to tlrc llinrls corntyMcild Hcdtt conniseioa wbo ide'rdcd to opcmc h rs a nreilat hcdth criss
iot€illntion ccnte(. In responrc to thcpetitioncrs, inquiry rc to the appopriae zooirg
chssificdioo for urch a frcility, thc ciiy adyis€d rtrei da te tau iieauc to bc zoneaoomncrcirl bccarsc thc facility worrld albw for orernight stlys. Tlrcreaftcr, the
dwelopcs filed e pctlion o rc-zonc thc indugial psrcct to a connrcrciel
"isssificatioo.
Souctime rser tlre dcvelopers fited their paitba thc gofecsiotrst saffof tho city
Planning Boud rdvised rhc-paitftnrcn au ttro clty'e nHnniog Bsrd thrr rhe prcforca
a*F rcq:st wrs appropdatq ||d tbrr h nns consisrcd witi'tle city's rrcl -F,r,rr"
Iasl uce Plan" Tlueaftcr, the city r plawriqg Board cmducl"d a puutic trearing on the@ioo md, aftcr e 7-z 'rore ftrtf,arH this rnattcr to thc chy curncit whh no
rocommendation. After the crty cotrncit, in its cagacity ar a zoning board, rcocivod thepetitioq it coo&rood e sicr gfprilic heuing'd whiilmmnrmltyoppcrition tothconstruction of mentd healh int€rr,€dion ccnter uns voi."a. et td" rt tr,gr,pruracrd dilcurclns cnnrcd abol pasoor with ruilal ilhess as udl * ode, pdertiatfocati'G fn thc propo*d carter- otrAgus zr,2@rtthe ciry Gouroit, asthi zoning
boar4 wcd to dcny thc rezoning pctitiorr
lE llri_F s,tr"l ailqee thu rbe cityk_zoning dccision wes discriminuory in vblationoftitlc II ofthc ADA' bcc.rsc thc cfry c*mcil's d€ci$ion wrs u"*d, Jd"t i" p*r,npon disaiminatory mcivcs againrt pcrsons with mentrl illness. Th" Cry d;"or admit
9 ti"lility inthis nmer, and d€oies that;1 6r" cngegsd in aisuimioatory praufu. rhecily frrthor denics rbd it ha3 vbld€d rrE AI)a Fuf tn orderto rvoio p,rfiil a'oexpensive litigrtioq rhe city has agreed to crrer into this scrlecrcnt elo.t.
3. Prlsuern to this Agreancm, the City of Jackson wilt:
1 Bv ]blv I ?' 2003, ofrer to psy thc pcritio*s compensatory damagps in the amount of$40,000.00.
!. By Au_guct 14,2003, ca$r€ tb.t sll ofrbc city's plaadng Board Members ard citycoruil Itdenbers rrodfiEo tnirftg on: r) rhc Amorir:ns *ith oi.atxtities A.r ,-*uy,a{ its rpplicatio io thc zoning ant€ft ia prtbrter; rna ul rrrc rpproilato-atrTrawftrcritsie to bc us€d in mrking a zarrry dscilbo, cosibeninguottr ii6ssi'-*pU r"- ,rrepnnciplcs of m-disirinatbn_
c, B1rc- laql thrn argrc 2t, zx' (ed aftcr
'oc
r8ioi'g rpccilied in pb has rakenphf)r {r city council win rwiov frc zorrturg pcrition 6sod "p* trr" Irigi-liorosd uin hoH e nrr rruc H. yp- qpryeril -o t
"rn
r *iti. .il iffi* "rJtrsrice rod tbe p*iriorcrs shdl bc flodfi-€d brtne cty corncil's uce on or-tfore August
, FRO{ ;,Accessible Eru i Ftrr|rnts Inl FPD( |,D. : 1
28,2m3.
d. By no leter tlm July 31,2W,2005, rod 2fi)6, providc thc undereigrrcd corosel for
thc Deponrcnt ofJucticc with | repdt listirg lld oqlaining &e mturc and outoome of
ewry zoning paition that diroctly or ildircctly invdvos pcnons with disabilhice.
Forthc Gity dJa*son: Fortre UniH SDebi:
TERRYWALI.ACE
CltyAtbrrtey
GEORGEW. NEVILI.E
S.rtfi Oeptfy CigAtbmey
cltyAtonwsotrce
.155 E!3tcadbl Stl€t
P.OBox'17
Jadrson, Mlssi38Fpi 3o20toot7
Date 7/16/03
RALPH F- BOYD, JR.
AssistEnt Atbmry Genersl br Cavil Rigttt
JOHNLVUOT,A.-_TCH.ChiEf
L.IRENE BOl,l,EN, DeFry Ch&l
ALYSSE BASS, Ss*r TdC Ato7my
TGUSSA TAYaORUOORT, eaangal
Dis$ny Righb Sectim
Civn Rgtrt3 Oiv[gkn
U-S. Depertnont d Juslice
Wachimbn, DCAlS30
Mb 7n7ns
- e6 2W l1:85fl'l P4
By;
.FRg"l ; Accessiblc Er|\, t rqrEnts FAX t€. : 1
UNITED STATES
WESTERN DISTRICT
CHARLOTTE
T'NITED STATES OF A!{ER]Ca,,ptaintiff,
and
eE nffi 11rO5Ft'1 P5
DISTRICT COURT
OF NOR?H CAROLT}.IA
DIVTSION
TAYLOR HS,IE OF
NO.
CIIARLOITE, INC.
Intervenor-PLaint i f f .
I
l
)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION
) 3;94-C1t-394-MU
I
)
)
)
I
v.
CITY OF CHARI.oTTE, NORTH EAROITNA,
Defendant,
ereqrt
lll- Title rr otr th. IDA rPrrlie' to Al!, 8.ning Enforcrerrtlstivitiec ltr.LEtrt n h,y lrrDlio Entiticc
fn enaCting the ADA, Congress sought to rprovide a Clearand corprelEnsive lrational nandatc for t.t.e eljmination ofdiscrinination against indirriduals with disabilities- ' 42 rJ.s.c.$ 12101 (b) (1)- Deferrd.nt secks to li:nit that nandate by argur.ngthat sorne activitiec of local governrcnts, such as zonlig. arenot coversd - In other uords, Defendant contends, localgovernments are prohibited fron discriminating in some of theiractivitles but are free to discrirninate in otiers. The Defenctantdoes not articulate any rcason for distinguishing zoning fronother actitritics of public entlties and the statrlte aoe! notprov-ide a basls for such a distinstion,
A. lln blt an<f bgirl.titt Eietoryr of .llitle tfItqrttaGc cdrlfGrcioDa]' Intlnt tp covrr lpc.r zqlingEnforcqrt gcrttEs.
Title rr provides broad protectron aqainst discriminationon the basis of disability in the provision of public services.Title If rs antidiscrimination provision eqrloys expangivelangnrage, intcndad to reach all actions taken by pt uti. entities-It statcs:
[Nlo quaS.ified indiwl-dual nir,h a dl-aabi].ity 3haIJ., byreason of such disabllity, be ercluded fr@ partictpition
FROM i Accessible Enir r rtrrEnts lrb FAX Ml. : 1
t 42 u.s.c. s 12r-32.
ADJAonust be broadly construed
Klnney v. Yerusalim, 8L2 E-affrd, 9 F-3d 106? (3d Clr.
1545 (1e94) -
in or be d€nied the benefits of the serwices, prograns, oractivities of a publj.c entity, or be srrbjected todiscritrti.nation by Fuch entity.
: at S L2132. There is no suEEastion in the statut€ thatzoning or any other tlpe of public action is to be excluded fromthis broad nan€late. Zoning activities and decisions are plainly
among the 'services, prograns, or activities.' conducted by pubticentities. Moreover, the last phrasc of title II's prohibition lseven more e:cpansive, stating sinrply that no individual with adisability nay be rsubJected to discrirnination. by a publlcentity. fd- rhis langruage prohibits a public entity fromdiscrirninating on the basis of disability in any manne!. sh€th€rthrough zoning or any other official activity.
To alloe discrimination on the basis of dlsabllity in anyarea of goverruncnt functioning denies persons with disabj.Iiticsequal opportunity to bcnefit from those government functions, indirect contravcntion to thef AIIA'S stated Eoals.lTit]-e f f 's legl-slative history leaves no dor.rbt thatcongrress intended title rr to covcr €very action taken in errcryforun j-n shich a ptrlclic cntLty roay functioh - The House Reportstatcs: tlhe Cormrlttce has chosen not to lict aJ-l the tl4>es ofactions that are includcd rithin the terru r discriminationl . aswas done in titles I an<l fII. becluse this title essentlallysi-qly extend.s the antidiscrinination prohibition enicodied inscction 5O{ to all actions of state and Iocal governments _ ' I{-R.
6 &ffi 11:O5Fa',t P6
As a rernedial statute, the
to effectuate its purposes-rl
supp. 547, 551 (E.D. pa. 1993),
1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct.
Rep. No. 485 (rr,, 1o1st Cong., ZA Sess@
1990 u-s-c-c.A.N- 3o3, 367 (qphasls added). rhc Ho;-Reportenphasizes the broad coverage of title If later, stating: -?ltleII of the bill nakes aII actiJritics of State and loca]goeerntents subject to ttle tl4rcs of prohibitions againstdiscrimination against qualified individuars with i disabllityincluded in section sOt (nondiscri_nination) -- Id. at 151.reprint-ed in 1990 u.S.C.C.A.H. at {34 (eryhasis added) -Replesentative Coelho, the ADArs principal sponsor in theHouse o! Representatirres, explained that the ADA was rneant toprohibit discrinination in the cnactment and enforcenent of locaLordinanc€s. 134 cong. Rec. g606, 81310 (epril 29, 1988)(attaqhed) (Title r ni[ prohibr-t disqrinr-natiory aetivities ofState and local governnents resulting frorn ordinaices, laws.requlations, or rules. t).2
ft is also evident fron other fanguage j.n the ADA
FRo'l .: Accessible Env i rsnents Irl FAX Ftr. : 1 6 nB6 1l:96f,J'1 P?
B- Drt'ssfnt of atustice lnter?.etationr Erylicitly ahorItrat Titl€ rI ryrtrlies t6 I.ooal Eonirrg Enforffint acttsrE3.
Consistent uith title II.s broad language and itsleqisfative history, the Departhent of Justice, in its title Ifirplenenting regulation and other title II analyses, hasinterpreted title If to rcach all actions Oy puUtic entities,including zoning enf orcemnt actions.
The Departnent of ilustice I s r€gulation irr1ltencnting titleff repeats the statute.s gcneral nondisqri-nination provision thatono qualified individual uith a disabllity shell . . . U"excLuded fron participation in or be denied the bcnefits of theservlces, proErams, or actirrities of a publlc entity, or besubjected to discrimination by any public entl_ty. |r ZE C.E.R. S35,13O(a) (199,1) - The Departnent of Justicers preamble to thereguration explains that "title rr appries to anything a pubricentity does . . . . ALl governEntaL actiwitieg of pubficentities are cowered |' 2g C.F.R. pt. 35, epp. A at 441_42.llhc regulation enrrerates several categories -of specificactivitics that constitute dl,scri.uinagion by public "rrilti"=. ZgC.F.R. S 35.130. one of these specific prorriiions requirespublic antities to nake .easonable rnodifications to tieirpolicies, practices, and procectures, where such modifications arenecessaly to avoid discrirnination on the basis of disability. ZaC.E.R- S 35.130(b) (?) -3 corm€nsutate nith the Act, this
that
the Act was intended to reach, and, in some cdses, preempt10cal ordinances- section 103 staEes that: "Nothing inthis [Act] shalt be construed to preempt, rnodify; or amendany state, couDty, or local law, orrtinanc€, or regulationapplicable to local food handling uhich is desiqneO toprotect pubtic health from individuals who pose aslgnlficant risk to the health or safety of others. . . .,42 U.S.C. S 12113(d) (3). See alsq H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 596.101st Cong., 2d Sess. ef t f g'gO
U.s.C.C.A-N. 565, 520. This sectG; wom-I;ve beenUnnecessary if the ADA were not other'rise intended toaffect loca1 ordinatrces.
! As discussed supra at 5-5, the tlepartment of
controllinq weight unless it isEanifestly contrary to the
,fustice I sregulation
"arbitrary,statute. '
is entltled to
capri.cious, or
Chevgon U.S.A.Inc.y. Natural ResourcesDqfsnfe Council, Inc.,addition, the Dep-artuerrt of rfustice,s preanble and Tt.tle IfTechnical Assistance uanual interpreting its reguration are
FRlt}'| .: Accessible Erw i rqrnents lL FAX hO, : 1
p.r:ovision uses broad language to cover the uidest possible rangeof actlons by public entities. Zoning enforcement actians,including the enactment of ordinances, arld any adninistrativeprocellses. hearings, and decisions by zoning boards, faIIsquarely ulthin the category of "policies, practices, orprocedures'f mentioned in the regulati.on.the Title II TA lr{anual speeifically uses zoning in anillustration of, a pubfic entityrs obligition to nodi-fy itspolicj.es, practices, and proccdures. ft explains:
A nunicipal zoning ordinance reguires a set-back of 12 feetfrom the curb in the qgngr.51 business district. fn orderto install a rry to the front entrance of a pharmacy, theorrner rhuet encroach on the set-back by three f,eet-Granting a variance in the zoning reguire-rnent rnay be areasonable modification of town policy.
TA Manual S II-3.6100 at 14- The TA ManuaL afso nakes clear thattitre rr reaches rocar raws and orcrinances generarry- fhe tltreIf regulation requires pr:blic entltlas to conduct a self_evaluation to assess, lnter al1a, alL of t,heir poLicies,practicss, and procedures. 28 C_f.n. S 3S.1o5(;). The TAManual s e:qpLanation of the self-cval-uation expricitry recognizcsthat ia public entityrs policieg and practice.- ur" reil.cted initg lars, ordin6nces, regulationE, adninistrative manuals. . .-fA Manual S II-8.1000 at 44. Dlscrlminatory 'policies,practices, and procedures must be modifiedr' regardless of theirfornr. Id.
C. Jualicl,al Intc4rretationg Do l|ot Sut{roft Corretnring
Tj. tJe tf ae fn4p].iceblc to zoningt.
Defendant cites gerrcral cases as indicating that title fIis inapplicable to zoning. However, none of the cases cited byDefendant provide any analysis or rationale tso support theirdecisions- This Court shoul.d decline to follog then_ |
In Oxford Housgr. Inc. v. City of Albany, 155 F.R.D. 409,410-U ( r.r conpletely failed to cj-teany authority' to support their position- in "orrlid".inE theplaintlffsr motion for reconsideration, the court acknouiedgeathat its decision that titre rr did not apply to zonlng "." ua""asinply qn the lack of 1e9ar. argruncnt presentld by the f,raintitrs.The court furthcr acknowredged that altnorities itrumttiecr by theplaintiffs in sulport of their reconsideration rmtion *iEtt, fftfurely preaented, have led to a different concJ.usion,
entitled to controlllng weight
erroneous or inconslstent hrith
eE m 1lr8?Fa't F8
wrless they are 'plainlythe regulation.h Thonass- Ct. 238L. 23B6Ecl.il.efferson Univ- v. Shalala, L14
, FR$.! .:. Acclssible Erw i rqrEnts lr| FAX 1.I]' : I
So CERTIEIBD this -lEh- day of [arch'-1995'By:-
The conslusion reac'hed by thcse Gourts is not only
on"oppottJ, but it ie plalnty coltTarY to the broad stacutory
ranguage, legislati;-d;;;y; anf -i'url,crrenting rcgulatlon of
iiii"-il' noie of rhich ware considered by the courts'
D- ca|.tfiritEl '!it'le II to c"rtEE tdring It c6tsirtrtt ritlt
S S-abilitatiorr efu ttd offi clYil Aiglrtt gt'Er!'B'
AJ.though rrcry ferr caseg ha'rte addrssced this issue under
tltle II, courts frave founO zoning to be co\riered under rclated
civll rights laus, msl notaury lectlon 504 of thc Rehabilitatlon
Act arrd tha F.i! Houslng f,ct '
6 4ffi ll:mm P:l
E\IEL.HIIJ.
Attorncy
U.S. IlPartment of ilustice
civil nights Division
DtsabiritY Rlghts Section
P.o. Boa 66?38
Washington' D-c. 20035-6?38
(202) 30?-0663
, FRU"I ;.Rccessible Er|{., i rq{IEnts Inl FFD( Nl. : 1 , s5 ffi 11:O9Ar'r P11
ACTION: Final rulc.
SIIMMARY: This rutc implcnents subtitlc A oftitlc II of dlc Anroicar witb
Irirabiliths Acg Pub. L. 10l-336, urhich prdribits discriniutioo on trc bEsis of
dieability by pblfo: emlicc. Suhitlc A prdoctr $t lificd indivi&* witb disabilitics
from discrimiuio on thc basis of disrhility ir thc serviccq prgrum, or adivities of dl
Strte rod local goramcos. lt o<tedr tbo prohrtitim o'f disoininerim in frdcrelly
assis{cd prograns csablishcd by socion 504 of thc Rchalilitatioo Art of l9Zl o all
activitioc of,Sotc od locd gorcrnncor, ircludiry rho6c dut do nct roccive Fcdcral
fmrcid aseisec, and hmrporarcs rpccific prohibitions of discrimination on tle basis
of disabifity fiom titi6 I, tU, od V of tho Amoform rvith Dis.bilfties Art. Thir rulc,
furcfrrc, rdonG tc grncral Fohfuitions of discriminatiou csrblirhd undcr rectio'n 504,
ar rrcll ac fic rcquiren otr fu mling progrsmr wiblc to indivi&rals with
dissbililies ard fur providilg oqrnlty cfioc*irrc corurnrnidi$s, It dso sert fuil
stadards for wta codinrtes dircrinirutio m ihc boris of rneoal c phyriet dfurbility,
prorridce a ffnido of disability end qualificd individuat with a disebility, ad
Gdrblirbs r omphir ncchanisn for rcolvilg allegaioas of discrimimtim.
EIFDICTM DATE: Jarury 26 1992. ...
3"b.tt S * G-".1 Roquirancils
{35.130 Gooolal prdribttionc agrinst discrininrtion.
(a) No qualifiod individrul witt a disabitity sball, oo thc bssis of disibility, bo erchdcd
from panicipaim in c bc dcnial tic bcncfits of tbc serviccs, fogrsn+ or raivities of a
public crrity, orbc a$jcccd lo discdnimim \ aaypublic cmrg.
(bXl) A public o*ity, in prtrvidiq uy dd, benef4 or svinq @y not, dirftrly or
ttmgh ooracfwl, lir:cnsi4; c orlcr areryancrts, oo ttc basis of disabilty -
(i) Deny a qralificd individual widt adirabilityfu ryortunitytoporticiper in a benefit
fromdre sC bcnafiL or svice;
(ii) Afiod a qualificd irdividnl cdth a diottility aa qportnity to participatc io or
bcncfit ftron &c aid, beoefit, o ervice 6d b Dd €qusl to thot doded cthers;
(iii) Prwi& a qd;nrd individual with a direbility with ar aB bencfit c scrvice rh.t is
uc as cftaiva in etrording equrl ofatDfty !g obtrin rl& saoc tc$lt, to grin lhc same
bcncfit, c b rcech$c so- lcwl of echievernd as tla prwidod to dlrcrls;
(vii) Othcr*isc limit a qualified iudividuat with e dirability in frc cnjoyme* of any nghq
privilege, advaatagc, or omomdry Gqioyed by clcrs rccoiving tbe aid. bcnefi! or
svicc.
(3) A publb antity nay nog dirccdy or thugl oodracUd or ortcr erraryrrncds, utilize
criuh s ndrods of efuini*cba:
O Tb h.w tb cftd qf arDjocilS qsellficd iadividrlr with di$bititics b
diecrimin*io on ttc bosb of disrbilitff
il).tp,rUfio -tiay ruyrot, iDdclcrlrfuiqgrb sitco tqtionofa Ecility, nrakc
solcctidtr -
. FR(}I ; Accessible Envi r€ruEnts In Ftr( t€. : I
T ^ m6 L7i rtr*t Pl
(i) Thu luvc u*tu cfrca of excluding individuals with disebilitics from, denyirg thon rhe
bcnefits of, or dlrcrwisc subjecring &cm to dircrimination; or
fl) f peblic crtity rhdl nrtc rcrronrble modificrtiom ia politicq prrcticcq or
proccdurc lhcn thc rnodificrtiorl trc Dcccrr.ry to rvoid dbcrirrindior ol tbr
hsb of dirrbilily. unhrs tlc public cltity cra drnonrtrelc 6rt nrling thc
nodificiionr would fundrnerfdly rf,cr thc arhrt of thc tcvie, prolrrD, or
rctivity.
iGl f.romtrg lo tir pertgohibi6 aprblic cmity from prwiding boocfu, scrvirq o.
advmgos to individuak urih di!.bilities, a to r portiorlar class of i-divirfueb wigq
dbebilities bcyod rhcc roquircd by rhis port.
As you can see in ote bold prht lten *7 mquir€c prSlic entities b make rcasonable
modilicdftns in poliies, pradicee, or pfoosduEs br peopb with <ns$iliiiis.
Follodng is ar e)<c€rpt from tte u.s. D€psilmcnt d Justic€, cMl Raghts Dvision,
Disabilfty Rigilrts Scciion:
Ihe ADA and City Govrrrrncils: Gommon Probbnrs
Rewiuncnt:
City govcmmens are r:$*ld b nuke reesonebb modificatirm io policies,
p€dc.s. or g|e(hrl b gaiemCsc'i*aton oil the besb oa ($seitily.
Reasonable modilcatbG cfi indude npdificdirnc b local law6, odlnsres,
and regulCirm |hatadv*rdy lnpcctpeoplc wilh dildtfibs Forcranplc, itl|ry ba r l||lonrbb rnodEcdiorr to grurt e v*iarrcr brlor*rg
rcqukencrts and rdldra
U.S. f}eptfircntcfJtdk;r-
Ctul Rghtt Divit:iorz
DsaldlifyRlgrrfis Secfron
Endoed wih this teuer is en oxcerpl d a Civil Action agahst t|9 oity of C,harlde, NorthcroFE (civil Adbn 394-cv€9+rtU). n*i di.rr -$otrs Eld ho Deparrnent ofJustie rcqfes d[6 b cdrrliler zonirB vaimoes ss e reaonst€ nrodiircation for ap€Ilonn'tl adlsabfty.
At3o enclo€€d i3 a slrttLnpnl betneeo tt D.partnent of Justice arxl therity d J$rson, ilisr3ripi (Itepatnent d Jtdte cortplah M,'ftcr 2o+4t-s)- ThisAglementstateso|athc city dJ.d(sr denbd a mning vadrroa bra persm wtth ad[ssbmy, alt<l tfuelbre tFy r'ust pay 9o,o{n in collrperuaory dar'locs to treurytgod prty, hrre t|e cb/s plrrsrE Boanl uerrbcrs and chj cqrtdl lbmbercul(lsrge batiE cr tfp AoA and itB +pncaim in the ating coflicxt, and submit a
'|'eod rsrtg d €rybtrriu hr n*{E ad qdconp d
"n€ry zor*rg p€iliton thdilrrdl€a pe€arr ntfi ffihs.
In llay of 2fix, tF u. S. sryrna cilt rded h tafi oa peopb rilh dsgbflieis tn
deanngE u,i0| prollc enilties, Thcir.&cisin .torts pq|e wisr'o:sibiffis o ane a prtlic
Gnliu br damagee il fhc prffc rrtty ino|E. the AbA.
FROH I Accessi.ble Envr rqnEnts FRX NO. : 1 6 M 11:27Ff'l P3
I believe lhese examples proye lhat public entties, such as $e cO d Vail, Colorado. at!
required to modfy tpir zoning requiremenF, when doing so allorc people with
disatilites lo have the same enjoymmt at peopb without disatilitics. The law
speciftcafly states it is a reasonabb accommodalbn to modify a variance.
Furtpr, if the zming rcquircment only allows drdfings lo covera certah pErcsrtego otfE lend in the subdivision, Casolar del Norb, and bur miB have not yel been bullt, it
seems more han feasonable to allorv the exisiitg owner b increse the giz€ of hi3
prcperty to allow the installetion of an dcwbr and other aeommd€tions. tn {re ftrturc,
Ste civ of Vail can determine 0|3 sizs of the bur r€mainirE unib. tt would not b€
nesoneble, and oertaidy not an acommodalion to a per€on wih a disdility, b lrquip
lhe existing onnar to fund he ciV of Vaife request to surtrey Casolar del Norb and
exlstirg dwellitg unlts within the diyi!$on tro detsrmine horr mtrdr additionat strucilJle can
be h the cubdvision.
To make $is Inore €gregious, ilre aty d Vail idr't even crrre e rradance is requied, they
simply arent pernitthg the installalion ol an Canabr and other rrodficatims br i
persm who is gadriplegic. Thc Americans wih Disabilitics Ad was enscGd to pr€vent
s;uch disaimination.
I h.vc cndosed a bbgraphy dr rne, my busirresr cad -d e b.ocfisre on Accessilrle
Erwironments, Inc
Please tucl fr€e to cdl m€ €t 952-914+8100 il you have quatons or uOuE trka me to
address additional isses. otherwlge, I will folow up wih you in a few ttays. Thank you.
Sinceety,
Inc
o
RPr
o
6,e/Asle*L
Paub ltladucci Harler
Predlent
4
f'1FrR-@-2@6 16:35 B?9 P,@,/@?
frdOlrtdoaC
fdrf(r)Aptr{r}t P;-'vw:c--l4"-
Gnrdr r ltst d Jgnrtnr i rnqc lpc lr qdc')'
AF.dr Fonn
DaoartmGnt C cstrtr,ttt ht ffirlt
zs soo Frurll|p Rl*l, vail cohloct6t
Bl tro.g9.3lll9 far: 9lua79.l+!l' r* !#JdgflF
trurltfrmrdon:#fiil-f-ndrmC iei {tttng gr rpp..l o, a 511. I-En.t6vi:r lcrl. o. Fmfi rd^Eftiotrrctltal
fi;il;'#h,rrauot"- Adffid fdtn rit dded rqtitqg*s Ild q sT mlu to ttt
ffiffi; Ot|iiinill Oepaattg;-ia!'t''unr*v Go) drru- drvr or !| otF|ld acb"/dddon'
le{ctrflpnoturfiftrffildr.ibo: rc "
-
Dr rrb?crl hllrlrt. l.ils nrd C rr$gll (|c)
ur,.rrrrrmcalrprrF ;lrxt (ud @D
rn*fff*r'qO,;;.i;. /sr Wt, en ayqa tl4 w t
| ,) tll^qr-rr
-m
ZtZ ffi lOs-
tHEiLl5htU$tn-L.* gffi{tirl.:-Q# +U,4'.5-
rffi
arsggfccoOqGtrfit
'ffir'ff"lsH:ii*irr Pt*atcr.ur q
.. ffig-ighdt* f|,doF Fr cdt errtr ourr lN In (r')'
ffiffiffi'*
e7'!il (r',,,rtzelFo
TOTfi- P,62
E)
trGEro=[i\
fl ilAR oz 20o6
U
TOWN OF VAIL
hUrU:
t'|eLt|r||tS
o
ERCFRITZLEN PI E ARCHITECTS
VAIL, COLORADO
Re: Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Action
To Uphold Staff Decision to "withdraw" an
App|ication for Variance, Beringause Residence, Ulnit 6A, Casolar VaiI
Ladies and Gentlemen,
ln accordance with chapter 3 of Title l2 (12-3-3) of the Town code, and on
behalf of my client, Eric Beringause, I would like to file a formal Appeal of PEC action to
uphold the Staff Decision to "withdraw" my application for a Variance, submitted on
December l2,2}Os,duetothedeterminationthatthecontentsareincomplete. ltismy
opinion that the material submitted does meet the submittal requirements for a
Variance. I would like to have this appeal heard by the Town Council as soon as
possible.
It is clear that numerous zoning Reviews have been performed and numerous
Building Permits issued throughout the casolar subdivision that are based on a
maximum GRFA of l690 sq. ft. as defined in the subdivision covenants. In fact in early
1995, a "250 square foot addition" was permitted on this Property in that it was
determined that the 1690 sq. ft., as well as the allowed 225 sq. ft. were used. lt was
agreed, at that time, with the addition of the 250 sq. ft., there was no additional square
footage available for this Dwelling. The Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
January 12, l98l, confirm that the staff required that the Covenants of the Subdivision
state the maximum allowable area per Dwelling unit in the subdivision'
It seems that the Staff, based on the material requested in Matt Gennett letter of
January 4, 2006, is attempting to determine if there is existing GRFA available in the
Subdivision. lf there is CRFA available, the Staff feels it would not be necessary to
provide a Variance for Mr. Beringause's Addition.
In my opinion it is inappropriate to require my client to evaluate Zoning
characteristics for the entire Casolar Subdivision.
l. There are Four Unbuilt Dwelling Units in the Casolar Subdivision. How would
GRFA be assigned to these Units, assuming that there were GRFA available?
1650 tast VailElley Drive, Fallridge C I, :
vi l, C olorado E1$57 :
?:970.476.6JQ
lr 970.4 75.4901
[] Inf $()vailarchile{ts.(orx
l.tfi|r |'];i.'i{lir. AiA, A1(.|'t;'.ri 1
'1,/ llrJrn t. P:c:cc, AiChitocl
Ktii.hy Il€11:/r(i:1. lll;-( jrli:1ti
l4ilr'l:lgti
February 16, 2006
Town Council
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
FRITZLEN PIER
o
CE ARCHITECTS
VAIL, COLORADO
2. tt would be and highly invasive, and potentially illegal for Mr. Beringause to
calculate the GRFA of Units that do not belong to him. The new methods of
calculating CRFA exacerbate the difficulW of the calculation. Original and
existing grades as well as room heights over l7 feet would need assessment.
It seems unnecessary to discuss the cost of such an evaluation'
3. lt seems possible, at considerable expense, to determine the exact "Build-
able Area" for the subdivision. My question remains: without the answer to
Item I (above) and the onerous calculations described in ltem 2 (above), what
value does the topographic survey and "Build-able Area" provide?
In closing, I believe there is sufficient basis for my request for a Variance based
on the historical reliance on the GRFA limit of 1690 sq. ft. throughout the Casolar
Subdivision.
please feel free to contact me on this matter and I look forward to the discussing
this matter at an upcoming Town Council Meeting.
Best Regards,
William Pierce, Architect
Hand delivered January 10, 2006
1 650 East Vail Valley Drive, Fallridge C- I ,
vail. Colorado 81657
P: 970.476.6347
F:970.476.4901
t: info@vailarchitects.com
www,vailarchilslts.com
o
ERCFRITZLEN PI ARCHITECTS
VAIL, COLORADO
ff4
Outline for Beringause Appeal
Hand out packages
Appeal of staff decision to reject an Application for a GRFA
Variance on Lot 64, Casolar Vail Subdivision, which is a
Subdivision that is zoned Residential cluster with ten duplex
lots located with Building Envelopes (Show Map, identify
subject Property)
We filed an Application for a Variance on December I2, 2005
for a PEC hearing on January 9, 2006
This hearing is not to review the merits of the Variance but
rather to establish the Applicant's right to be heard by this
Board in his request for a Variance.
On January 4, 20O6, we received a letter from Matt Gennett,
essentially rejecting our Application as incomplete. A Copy is
identified in your packet as ltem l.
In summary the Staff is requesting that my client prepare a
topographic Survey of the entire subdivision, about 143,000
sq. ft. That is 3.25 acres.
we are then requested to calculate the "Buirdabte Area", that is
the total site area less than 40% slope.
1650 [ast V&!l Vaitey Drtve, Fallndqe C- l .
Vail, Colorado 81657
?.970.476.6342
F:974.476.4901
!: inf o.evailarchitects.c0ryi
!^r$r? - va iia rc h itects. com
FRITZLEN PIER
o
CE ARCHITECTS
VAIL. COLORADO
When the Buildable Area is determined we are then to calculate
the CRFA of all l6 Units currently built in the Subdivsion.
This would involve a calculation in accordance with current
GRFA rules, including Basement credits and areas over l6 feet
in height.
This is not only onerous and very expensive to do, but it
seems to me to be an invasion of the privacy of the Owners of
those Units
Then there is the issue of the 4 unbuilt Units in the
Subdivision.
How would GFRA be assigned to those Units?
lf all of the Buildable Area was not used by the l6 existing
Dwellings, would Mr. Beringause be assigned GRFA from the
sites that are not yet constructed?
It sounds unreasonable to me.
Item 2 in your packet is my letter of January
.|0, 2006,
summarizing these points.
I made a thorough review of the Town's file on this Subdivsion,
which is about 18" thick.
It is full of records of appeals and lawsuits related to matter of
GRFA.
There is no record of the calculation of Buildable Area but
there are numerous references to a limit of I690 sq. ft. of
GRFA for each Unit in the Subdivision in those records.
l6!0 East vail Vailey Dfive, Fallridge C-l,
Vail, C:olorado 81657
?:970.476.6342
F:970.475.4901
E: info@vailarchitects.com
www.vailarchitectS.com
FRITZLEN PI ERC?ARCH ITECTS
VAIL, COLORADO
that no additional
Item 5 in your packet is a letter from Andy Knudtsen' dated
FebruarY 10, 1995, stating
Casolar is entitled to 1690
The Staff contends that they do not enforce Covenants but
numerous Building Permits and Zoning Checks use the 1690
sq. ft. standard as a basis for zoning compliance' There is no
referenceontheP]atastoBui|dableAreaorGRFA|imitations
|tem3inyourpacketaretheMinutesofthePlanning
CommissionMeetingofJanuary12'1981'DianaToughill'the
PlanningAdministratoratthetimetheSubdivisionwas
annexed, states "that the Town in fact required that certain
thingsbeputintotheCovenants....SothattheTowncou|din
fact enforce the GRFA..." She goes on to say the maximum
GFRA per Unit is stated in the Covenants'
Item 4 in your packet is a DRB action Form' approving a 250
sq. ft. addition to this property' dated April 5' 1995'
|tistheTown,spo|icytoverifythatal|avai|ab|eGRFAhasbeen
used before granting a250 sq' ft' addition'
ln addition there is a notation on that Form' by Lauren
Waterton, stating "no GRFA remaining"
It seems there was no question, at that time'
GRFA could be added to the Unit'
"each side of a DuPlex within
sq. ft. of GRFA"
1650 East Vail valley Drive, Fallridge C-1,
vail, Colorado 81657
?: 97A.476.6342
f:970.476.4901
Et infO@vailarchitects.com
w'.l,td,vai I arch ilects.com
F RITZLEN PI ERC?ARCH ITECTS
VAIL, COLORADO
|tem6inyourpacketistheZoneCheckfortheSubject
property, done in 1980, from what I can tell from other
records. lt again references the 1690 sq. ft. limitation
Item 7 is a Zone check for Lot 5 in the casolar subdivision'
Again the GRFA limit of 1690 is stated and it is noted that the
planssubmittedexceedtheGRFAlimitandthep|ansWerenot
approved
ltemsS,g,andl0areBui|dingPermitsandZoneChecksfor
Lot 8 in the casolar subdivision. All of those documents refer
to the same GRFA limit of 1690 sq' ft'
|temsll,.|2,and]3inyourpacketsareZoneChecksforLot
9. The same GRFA limit is addressed
Item l4 is a construction Permit for Lot 1 0 in the casolar
Subdivision. Again there is a reference to an area limitation of
3380 sq. ft. That is 1690 for each side of the Duplex'
In closing it is my contention that Mr. Beringause is entitled to
app|yforaVariancethatwi||a||owadditionalF|oorArea.
He has the approval of his immediate neighbor and the casolar
Homeowner's Association for his Application
1650 East Vail Valley Drive' Fallridge C- I
'
Vail, Colorado 81657
?:970.476,6347
ri 970.476.4941
www,vaila!'chitects.com
FRITZLEN PIER
o
CE ARCHITECTS
VAIL, COLORADO
It is clearly established, with the testimony of Diana Toughill,
that the Town established a maximum area for each unit in the
Subdivision.
The records of that calculation are not available from the
Town's records at this time but the GRFA limit of 1690 sq. ft.
per Unit was placed in the Covenants.
The other documents in your packets establish, without a
doubt, the Town accepted and enforced these limits.
I believe there is more than a sufficient basis to establish that
there is no additional CRFA available for Unit 64 without
resorting to the difficult task of calculating the Buildable Area
in the Subdivision, and calculating the CRFA of all of the
existing Units as requested by the Staff.
| 650 fast Vail valley Drive, Fallridge C- I ,
Vail, Colorado 81557
?:97O.476.6342
F:974.476.4941
t: inf0CtVailarchitects,com
www.vai iarchite{ts.com
? 't'.
May 16,2006
Eric Beringause
3109 West 50t Street
#208
Minneapolis, MN 55410
Larry Eskwith
P.O. Box449
Edwards, CO 81632
Dear Eric and Larry,
Per your request, I have reviewed the architeclunal plans for the Beringause residence,
designed by FriElen Peirce. Mr. Beringause is in the process of applying fOr approval of
the plans for the Beringause residence by the Vail Design Review Board. The purpose of
this letter is to inform the Design Review Board and any other administrative agency that
may review the plans of its obligations pursuant to the ADA.
Also, it is important to note that the city of Vail has entered into a Settlement Agreement
with the Department of Justice regarding Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
violations. This agreement was effective August 5, 2004. I will address some of those
issues, as well.
Relative to the size of the addltion, I think it is completely within reason. The addition is
713 square leet, a 2101o increase in the size of the property. lt is important to know how
much space a wheelchair occupies. As you will see in the following examples, a
wheelchair takes more than 100o/o more dear floor space than a person not in a
wheelchair. Following are some comparisons.
1. The ADA requires a minimum of 30" x 48" clear floor space for a stationary
wheelchair. An average person without a wheeldrair needs about 15" x24", or
half the area.
2. An accessible toilet stall needs to be a minimum of 6Cl" wide and have 48" in front
of the toilet (about 60" x 70"). A toilet stall for a person without a wheelchair is
about 32" x 40".
3. The ADA requires a 5' circular arca for a wheelchair to tum. An average person
without a disability needs less than 2'.
4. The ADA requires a minimum of 42" wide clear floor space for a person in a
wheelchair to move around an obstruction. A person without a wheelchair needs
less than 24".
5. The ADA requires 18" of clear floor space on the pull side of the door. A person
without a wheelchairwould need 0".
6. The ADA requires 12" of clear floor space on the push side of the door. A pecion
without a wheelchairwould need 0".
7. The ADA requires 5' of clear floor space for a fonrvard approach to a door. A: p€rson without a wheelchair would need less than 2'. : .
8. The Fair Housing Act (FHA) requires 3d x 48" of clear floor space, centered, in
front of the sink, stove, refrigerator and any other appliance. '
5504 HILLSIDE COURT . EDINA, MN 55439-12l 8
19521 944-8100 . FAX 1952], 944-1981 o horte007@tc.umn.edu
ACCESSTB NVIRON|V|ENTS,
,,a,!'..
The requirements continue in every asped of 'clear floor space", whether it be adjacent
to doors, in front of appliances or to simply change directions.
In addition to the ADA and FHA, other considenations would be the type of wheelchair
Mr. Beringause uses. Since he is quadriplegic, he uses a drair that tilts back to allow the
user to alter positions to change pressure points (this is extremely important to staying
healthy). When in the tilt-back position, the clear floor space needed would increase
exponentially to the amount of tilt.
lf Mr. Beringause was to enjoy the same clear floor space as a nondisabled person, the
residence would need to be increased to at least 6,400 square feet, as opposed to the
3,964 square feet they have proposed.
Other considerations include:. The namp in the garage needs to be at least 16 feet long due to the 16 inch rise. The mdification of the kitchen requires using the existing dining room for the
additional space needed, so unless Mr. Beringause is supposed to eat in the
living room or bedroom, a dining room needs to be added.. Most new homes in Vail are 5,000 to 6,fr)0 squarefeet.
Another significant fact is that in August of 2004, the city of Vail entered into an
agreement with the Depertment of Justice. A copy of this is attached. lt does not appear
that the city of Vail has abided by the agreement.
Settlement Requirement. to notit applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons oftheir rights
and the Town's obligations under title II and the Departnent's regulation, 28 C.F.R $
35.106;
Response: Neither Mr. Beringause nor his attomey, Mr. Eskwith have been informed
of their rights and Vail's obligations.
Settlement Requirementr to designate a responsible employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out
the Town's ADA responsibilities, 28 C.F.R $ 35.107(a);
Response: Neither Mr. Beringause nor his attomey, Mr. Eskwith have been given the
name of an employee designated as the ADA coordinator.
Settlement Requirementr to esablish a grioance procedure for resolving complaints of violations of title II, 28
c.F.R $ 35.107(b);
Response: Neither Mr. Beringause nor his attomey, Mr. Eshrvith have been told of a
grievance procedure.
The Agreement goes on to say that an ADA coordinator was designated and that there
is a grievance procedure, yet neither Mr. Beringause nor his aftomey, Mr. Eshdth have
been given this information.
7. The Town has a designated ADA Coordindor. The ADA Coordinator
coordinates the Town's effort to comply with and carry out its responsibilities
underthe ADd including any investigation of complaints communicatedto it
{..1,
dleging its noncompliance with title tr or alleging any actions that would be
prohibited under title tr. The Town makes available to all interested individuats
the name(s), office address(es), andtelephone numbe(s) of the ADA
Coordinator's Office.
8. The Town adopted an ADA Grievance Procedure. Griwances are brought to the
atteirtion of the ADA Coordinator who worla towards a resolution ofthe matter. Ifthe
ADA Coordinator's response does not satisfrctorily resolve the iszug the grievance may
be broughtto the Town Council for review.
It does not appear that Vail has trained their employees on the requirements of the ADA.
r Within 12 momhs ofthe effective date of this Agreeme*, the Torn'n will develop or
procure a two-hour training program on the requirements of the ADA and appropriate
ways of serving persons with disabilities. The Town will use the ADA technical
assistance mat€rials developed by the Departnent and will consult with interested
persons, including individuals with disabilities, in developing or procuring the ADA
training program.
The City of Vail and the Department of Justioe entered into the Settlement Agreement so
Vail could avoid the burdens and expenses of an investigation and possible litigation.
r In order to avoid the burdens and expenses of an investigation and possible litigation, the
parties enter into this Agree
It is also important to remember that the ADA requires public entities to make
reasonable modifications in their policies.
. A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures
when ttre modifications iue necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,
unless the public entity can demonstrate that naking the modifications would
ftndamentally alter the nature of the service, prograrn, or activity.
DEPARTMENT OF ruSTICE OfEce of the Attomey General
28 CFRPART 35
[OrderNo. ]
Nondiscriminatim on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Govenrneil Serrdces
AGENCY: "ffi-.iilSffi.
You have several options if the city of Vail denies the application for a building permit
without abiding by the ADA, wttich requires accommodations for a p€rson who uses a
wheelchair, and therefore has needs such as an elevator and additional square footage.
1. File a grievance with the city of Vail
2. Contaci the Department of Justice
3. File a lawsuit
Please feel frse b call me at 952€44€100 if you have qr.restione or would like nre to
address additional issues. oheruise, I willfollor up wifrr you in a fieuv days. Thank you.
Sinceely,
&d-)n-./&-o-
Paula Mariucci Harbr
Preskbnt
4