Commercial Appraiser FW: [New post] Supreme Court of MA Holds That Each Of Three Doorways To Store Was A Separate “Entrance” Required By Regulation To Be Accessible

WordPress.com
Commercial Appraiser  
Thanks!
Curtis D Harris BS CGREA REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell424-218-9580 Skype WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com ;Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/commercialappraiserresume2013locked.pdf ;Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ ; http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ ;The LOoP! a Google CSE: http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=000747579154309164948%3Annakvu69iqy ; We Make a Simple Pledge to

Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality

Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public

Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship

and

Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAITax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal
 
From: LAW OF THE LAND [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:14 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [New post] Supreme Court of MA Holds That Each Of Three Doorways To Store Was A Separate “Entrance” Required By Regulation To Be Accessible

 
Patricia Salkin posted: "In January, 2008, Jennifer Niles, a wheelchair user, filed a complaint with the board alleging that the Kingston store was not accessible. The owner of Hollister (the clothing retail store) sought judicial review of decision of Architectural Access Board "

Respond to this post by replying above this line
  New post on LAW OF THE LAND Supreme Court of MA Holds That Each Of Three Doorways To Store Was A Separate “Entrance” Required By Regulation To Be Accessibleby Patricia Salkin
In January, 2008, Jennifer Niles, a wheelchair user, filed a complaint with the board alleging that the Kingston store was not accessible. The owner of Hollister (the clothing retail store) sought judicial review of decision of Architectural Access Board requiring retailer to make all entrances to its store accessible to persons with disabilities. The Superior Court Department, Suffolk County, granted Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The store owner appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed. Following this, the store owner applied for further appellate review.Hollister argued that multiple doorways on the same façade must be deemed a single entrance, and where two of the three doorways are accessible, it was inappropriate for the board to conduct further inquiry into the nature of the third doorway. The board rejected this argument, because entering through the central porch gives the patron the option of arriving at a place different from the one arrived at by entering through one of the accessible side doors, and supports its reasonable determination that differences in use pattern between doorways may signal multiple entrances. The court agreed that since both interpretations were plausible it would not disturb the board’s decision. Furthermore, the determination that a substantial benefit could be had by persons with disabilities by providing access through the central porch ends the inquiry into whether a variance may be granted. Because the board's denial of the variance was based on substantial evidence, this court affirmed the holding of the Superior Court.J.M. Hollister LLC v Architectural Access Board, 2014 WL 3359665 (MA 7/10/2014)
Patricia Salkin | July 14, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Categories: Current Caselaw, Definitions | URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-27S
Comment See all comments Like Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from LAW OF THE LAND.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/supreme-court-of-ma-holds-that-each-of-three-doorways-to-store-was-a-separate-entrance-required-by-regulation-to-be-accessible/  

 
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com