Multifamily Developers Beat Code Confusion

MIAMI—It's a decision that attorneys say impacts most multifamily developers and builders in Florida. The Florida Building Commission recently granted a petition set forth by Robert S. Fine, shareholder at the Miami office of Greenberg Traurig, that clarifies new additions to the state's accessibility code.

The code was designed to ensure commercial buildings and other public facilities are accessible to people with disabilities and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) architectural standards. But the vague language was being misinterpreted to impose the same stringent requirements on numerous new multifamily properties across the state that would not otherwise be covered by the accessibility code.

“With this decision, the code will continue to provide protection and access to those who need it and relief for multifamily developers and others negatively impacted by the confusion,” Fine says. “It will enable the code to be interpreted and enforced how its authors intended.”

According to Fine, state building officials had been misreading the ambiguous wording of the new code additions, often forcing multifamily and condominium developers to halt permitting in order to redraft plans, adding elements such as swimming pool chair lifts in common areas and oversized kitchens and bathrooms in dwelling units. These elements were originally intended for public accommodations and commercial facilities or government-funded projects, and never meant to apply to most multifamily properties. Fine said this created confusion, additional costs and construction delays in one of the state's most important industries.

“As the ADA continues to weave more standards into the building code, builders, developers and enforcement officials are scrambling to interpret the new requirements and determine how to remain compliant,” says Fine. “Accessibility-related building codes are critical to protecting the rights of disabled persons, but this particular set of requirements was being misinterpreted by building officials to the detriment of some of our state's most critical industries: residential construction and real estate development.”