Hello, I went to a facility on 6/25/2014 at around 6pm for my job. When I arrived in the parking lot there was a sign that directed the residents of the facility to the right of the parking lot and residents are mostly handicap. It is an independent living home. I was told that they did not have to provide parking close to the building for visitors who are handicap. This is in Columbus, OH. I spoke with their transportation manager on the phone and he was very rude and stated that the residents pay to live there and that they deserve the handicap spots. Are they allowed to do this? If you have any questions please let me know otherwise I appreciate your time and to look forward to your answer.

— Amber S. – Rockbridge, OH ANSWER: While there is no prohibition of separating parking areas for employees/visitors/residences and accessible parking spaces must be determined by the total number of spaces within each lot, the standards still require that the accessible parking spaces be on the shortest accessible route. While there are other factors that could come into play in this situation … READ MORE

Do service dogs need to be harnessed? If so, does it need to say “service dog” on it?

— Tom F. – USA ANSWER: Under the ADA, service animals must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents using these devices. In this case, the individual must maintain control of the animal through voice, signal, or other effective controls. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, … READ MORE

Colorado is one of the two states that have medical/retail marijuana facilities. Here in Cortez we have an existing site being altered to provide medical marijuana goods and services to the public. The site is located off of a public two lane road that does not have public sidewalks, however, the road is also used by pedestrians and bicycles. The shared driveway to the facility is 750 feet from the public roadway and contains a section with a maximum grade 9%. Would this be considered beyond the extent of “readily achievable” to provide an accessible route path of travel to the public roadway?

— Ken T. – Cortez, CO ANSWER: Readily achievable would not be the standard to apply here. Exception 2 from the 2010 ADA Standards section 206.2.1 would be the most appropriate in my opinion. An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way … READ MORE