Bike Path ADA letter
14 February 2011
Dana Weeder
Winter Street Architects
209 Essex Street, Suite 300
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Village Hill Pathway Improvements
Northampton, MA
Dear Mr. Weeder:
I have reviewed various Village Hill Trail Improvements Plans to provide a simple letter of assurance re: the design’s compliance with 521 CMR (The Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts
Architectural Access Board) and the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. My review also included two letters prepared by the Institute for Human Centered Design (IHCD) (10/25/2010 and
12/6/2010). In addition to our phone call with Elizabeth Murphy at Mass. Development, I have also discussed this project with my partner, David Kessler, and (anonymously) with Thomas
Hopkins, the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Architectural Board to confirm my interpretations for this project.
My comments are given in the context of full agreement with IHCD’s regulatory analysis in its 12/6//2010 letter. Although the current plan for the trail improvements does not fully
comply with either 521 CMR or with the 1991 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, there are options that could allow the work to go forward.
Undertake the proposed pathway work is a repair with no permit, or under a separate permit. This requires modifying the scope of work so that the pathway is a ‘repair’ and not an alteration.
The walkway would have to be replaced ‘in kind’ in the same location as it is now. It could not be widened or rerouted. Within this scope, the surface and cross-slope of the walkway
would have to comply with 521 CMR and the 1991 ADA Standards, but the slope requirements would not be triggered. In conversation with Tom Hopkins he recommended requesting a formal
‘Advisory Opinion’ from the Board to verify that the scope of work is a ‘repair’ and not an ‘alteration,’ as described above.
Modify the design of the walkway, as recommended by IHCD in its 10/25/2010 letter, making it comply with the 2007 Proposed Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas, and, through equivalent
facilitation, with the 1991 ADA Standards. A variance from 521 CMR would be required for areas that exceed maximum slope requirements; but there is a reasonable chance it could be granted
on the grounds of ‘impracticability:’ “…compliance would result in excessive cost without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities.” (521 CMR 5: Definition of Impracticability)
Please feel free to call if you would like to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Katherine McGuinness
Principal
Cc: Elizabeth Murphy