Disabilities Group Calls Rear-Door Ramp 'Back of Bus' Treatment

Over the objections of East Hampton Town’s disabilities advisory board, a site plan for a new commercial building in Montauk that designates a separate, back-door entrance for disabled people was endorsed by the town planning board in a straw poll earlier this month. The approval came despite a statement from the chairman of the disabilities board, Glenn Hall, that the proposed back-door ramp would violate the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. 

The issue was back on the planning board’s agenda at its meeting last night. According to Job Potter, the board’s chairman, the straw poll vote was likely to be revisited due to a finding by David Browne, the town’s chief fire marshal, that the ramp would not comply with New York State’s building code.  

Whether or not the site plan goes forward, Mr. Hall said that his board, which has been scheduling meetings with town board members and other officials, will begin taking steps to “fix the system,” so that the concerns of handicapped people are given more consideration in the government’s decision-making processes.

An early site plan for the two-story building at 87 South Euclid Avenue included a handicapped-accessible switch-back ramp leading from the parking area, which is at the front of the building, to the main door. That plan was approved by the planning board on Jan. 25, 2017. 

Upon excavation of the property, Kathleen Semergieff, one of the building’s owners, said it had become apparent that that placement of the ramp was not feasible due to the incline of the parking area. “The lot was way, way, way, too steep,” she told the planning board on July 25, explaining that a change was necessary because if the plan were left as initially approved “no one in a wheelchair would be able to get out without rolling backward into the street.” 

Having the ramp lead to the back of the building, Ms. Semergieff said, would make the incline less precipitous. 

Before granting the modification, the planning board asked the disabilities advisory board for its opinion. Mr. Hall wrote back on Aug. 6 that making disabled people enter the business through the rear door would amount to “back of the bus” and “separate but equal” treatment, which, he said, was clearly in violation of the law. Nevertheless, in a 5- to-2 voice vote, the board approved the modification.

Mr. Hall was so outraged by the results of the July 25 straw poll that he began an effort to stop construction from moving forward. 

“This is a civil rights issue,” he said. A back-door ramp, he said, violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, which states that a handicapped-accessible route coincide with or be located in the same area as the “general circulation path.” Furthermore, pointing out that the proposed building has three doors, he said the back-door ramp would be breaching a provision that 60 percent of a facility’s public entrances be handicapped-accessible.

Mr. Hall said he had hastily organized a meeting of the disabilities advisory board on Friday to discuss the matter. In attendance were several town officials, including Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, a board member and the group’s liaison; Tom Ruhle, the disabilities coordinator, Tom Talmage, an engineer, Marguerite Wolffsohn, planning director, and Michael Sendlenski, the town attorney. Mr. Hall said that Mr. Sendlenski had agreed at the meeting that the ramp in question would be illegal.

That assessment was contrary to the advice provided to planning board members by their own lawyer, John Jilnicki, who indicated that the issue fell into what Mr. Potter described as a “gray area” of legality. 

Explaining his reasoning, Mr. Jilnicki said this week that he viewed the back-entrance access for people with disabilities as comparable to the front entrance because both would open up into the same large commercial space, albeit at opposite ends. Convenience-wise, he added, a straight ramp to the back entrance would ultimately allow for a shorter traveling distance than a switch-back ramp to the front.

The fire marshal’s office regularly provides guidance on planning board matters, and Mr. Browne, who had earlier alerted the board to accessibility issues with the site plan, informed the members that the ramp to the back door would likewise violate a mandate of the state’s building code that “at least 60 percent” of all public entrances be accessible. 

At Mr. Hall’s urging, Richard Whalen, an attorney for the East End Disabilities Group, an advocacy organization, had also pointed to the state code’s 60 percent rule in an Aug. 16 letter to the board.

“We have to change the way the planning board gets their instructions,” said Mr. Hall, who believes that if the members had been better versed in the A.D.A.’s requirements, the site plan modification would have never been approved. 

“The good news is, this is raising people’s consciousness,” he said. To make town officials even more aware, he said, he will recommend to the town board that planning board members be required to attend classes on the A.D.A.