We have a walk-up building in which one resident lives on the "first floor" which is really about 6 steps up. She keeps a motorized wheelchair in the small lobby of her tier. We are trying to get ALL items out of the common areas and have been successful with bicycles etc. But this resident says she must leave that there. It is too heavy to carry up the stairs, and she can get up and down a few stairs, but uses that outside to get around. To me it would be a reasonable accommodation to let her leave it there. But the fire department says it is against code! There is no where else we can put it--nothing else is ground level except the outside. Also, she does not want to move. Any ideas?
I don't believe ADA accommodations trumps safety codes and laws. For example, it is a safety issue as far as the Fire Marshall is concerned; therefore, safety first, the right to store the scooter is last. I would think the only thing the Resident can do is ask that there be a place where she can store it on the grounds, like in a shed or bike rack area if she can't manage carrying it from her apartment up the stairs. Or, she can move. Perhaps this is a question for your attorney. Also, is the Resident requesting an accommodation?
I can see having it stored outside being a safety hazard (let alone a target for theft) and it not being a reasonable accommodation to store it outside.
That is where a modification request under ADA would come into play to build a ramp in such a way that it is not a safety issue.
Is there an alternative to storing it outside or building a ramp; short of having the resident move?
We can't build a shed. This is Chicago, so a large municipality means weirdness. There is no other land to build anything on. The bike room is 4 steps downward in a basement area, so can't use that. Plus, it's not close to her apartment. She really doesn't want to move but of course we could help if that was needed. One person locally told me to go ahead and let it remain in the common area, then if we get a building violation to go to the court date and fight it that way. Not fun, but maybe that's the way to go.
Ugh! As the manager of a senior's community motorized wheelchairs are the bane of my existence! The damage caused by inexperienced drivers...oh the horror.
Anyway I feel your pain Chuck. Our community use to have a rule that no personal items including wheelchairs and walker were allowed in common areas. One resident went to her Dr. and got a note requesting a reasonable accommodation which meant I had to allow her to leave her chair in the foyer closest to the door she exists. That of course snowballed to everyone wanting to leave their chairs and scooters in the foyers. I have spoken with my local fire chief while it is a violation he's overlooking it. I guess you don’t really have an option other than to allow her to leave it there. This is a tough one!
I am going to remain stubborn on this issue. I just don't think you are required to approve every request for a reasonable accommodation if it is a safety issue and/or if it will be cost prohibitive to do so. Here is my thinking - and absolutely, I could be dead wrong on this - but if there is a fire in a builing with a common area hallway, and there are no sprinklers in the units, etc., and the presence of three or four or even ONE scooter prevents escape .... I just think that is reason enough to say no to the request. I can tell you if this was my mother's building and there was a blocked exit and she was injured I would be the first person to consult an attorney. We all know that occasionally an elderly resident forgets about something on the stove and small fires can occur so easily. Just saying ....
When I had a building with common area hallways, I required Residents to park their scooters inside their apartments at all times. If needed, they could enlarge their entry doors at their expense (although it wasn't necessary at that property as door ways were wide enough.) I understand Chuck's dilemma, but I would rather lose one Resident rather than risk the safety of the entire floor and building.
Mindy is spot on, from my view. I would just add that it does not hurt to explore options, as there may be a solution there which will work for all concerned without sacrificing safety. We want the residents to know that at least we tried. The effort to get educated over this can help for future situations of the same.
When there was a situation that I had not ran into before I started making phone calls and talking to fellow professionals as well as the offices and departments that were concerned to try and findout answers. When I was in the military, I had this commander, who challanged his officers with, "Do not tell me why I cannot do it, tell me how I can do it." So, it was a mindset of always looking for options.
The options may mean that the resident may have to go in their pocket, and it may boil down to you cannot fix it, and I always say safety outweighs everything else. That is why I suggested talking to your locals to see what ideas are out there and if none are found, then at least you tried, like getting on here. Wish this site was here when I first started out!
But, again Mindy made it short, sweet, and too the point!
I wonder if the OP can take a wide angle picture of the entryway in question so we can see if anything can be done with his constraints.
I do not like to hear or use the 'No we cannot do that' answer; I would rather have the 'Here is what we CAN do' instead. Let's see if we can collectively come up with some options for him.
I am sorry I am unable to come up with anything without envisioning how it can be put into context.
Well, we felt we HAD to let it be there. We were able to get all other items out of stairwells, etc. such a bicycles, so it seems to not block any exit areas. However, a couple of residents have complained of discrimination because they say it would be convenient to have bicycles nearby too, and the one resident didn't actually file an ADA complaint (in Chicago, tenant laws are so strong that you spend an amount of time "negotiating" more or less with people). I think this is one of the situations where the fire department will "look the other way"--weird to have such tight laws and then official "overlooks" of things that aren't easily solved.