24 C.F.R. § 8.22

New construction—housing facilities

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) New multifamily housing projects (including public housing and Indian housing projects as required by § 8.25) shall be designed and constructed to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps.

(b) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, a minimum of five percent of the total dwelling units or at least one unit in a multifamily housing project, whichever is greater, shall be made accessible for persons with mobility impairments. A unit that is on an accessible route and is adaptable and otherwise in compliance with the standards set forth in § 8.32 is accessible for purposes of this section. An additional two percent of the units (but not less than one unit) in such a project shall be accessible for persons with hearing or vision impairments.

(c) HUD may prescribe a higher percentage or number than that prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section for any area upon request therefor by any affected recipient or by any State or local government or agency thereof based upon demonstration to the reasonable satisfaction of HUD of a need for a higher percentage or number, based on census data or other available current data (including a currently effective Housing Assistance Plan or Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan), or in response to evidence of a need for a higher percentage or number received in any other manner. In reviewing such request or otherwise assessing the existence of such needs, HUD shall take into account the expected needs of eligible persons with and without handicaps.

[53 FR 20233, June 2, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 920, Jan. 9, 1991]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1999–2016 · leading case: Logan v. Matveevskii

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Logan v. Matveevskii (2014) nysd · cites it 4× “22 Throughout his submissions, Plaintiff makes various references to 24 C.F.R. § 8.22 , a HUD regulation that reads as follows: (a) New multifamily housing projects (including public housing and Indian housing projects as required by § 8.”

Louis ex rel. G.A.H. v. New York City Housing Authority (2016) nysd “2004) (reaching analogous conclusions with respect to HUD regulations addressing accessibility in public housing projects and facilities at 24 C.F.R. §§ 8.22 , .23, and .26). Plaintiffs’ .”

Telesca v. Long Island Housing Partnership, Inc. (2006) nyed “24 C.F.R. § 8.22 . In addition, the regulations require that “multifamily housing projects” be specifically marketed to people with disabilities: [Pjrojects having accessible units shall adopt suitable means to assure that information regarding the availability of accessible…”

Adapt of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Housing Authority (2007) paed “§ 794 , 24 C.F.R. §§ 8.22 and 8.23. This action has a long and contentious history which is recorded elsewhere and will not be repeated here except as necessary.”

Three Rivers Center for Independent Living, Inc. v. Housing Authority (2004) ca3 · cites it 5× “See 24 C.F.R. §§ 8.22 (a)-(b), 8.23(a). When one or more dwelling units in an existing facility are altered-but the alterations do not rise to the level of “substantial alterations”-the units must be made accessible to the mobility impaired, until five percent of the *417 units…”

Taylor Ex Rel. Wazyluk v. Housing Authority of the City of New Haven (2011) ca2 “2004) (reaching analogous conclusions with respect to HUD regulations at 24 C.F.R. §§ 8.22 , .23, and .26). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit, for the reasons articulated in Taylor II.”

American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (1999) ca3 “ADAPT’s argument revolves around HUD’s alleged failure to investigate and enforce violations of one of these regulations — 24 C.F.R. § 8.22 . This regulation directs that, in addition to accessible buildings and common areas, 5% (but not less than 1) of the units in each covered…”

Taylor Ex Rel. Wazyluk v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF NEW HAVEN (2011) ca2 “2004) (reaching analogous conclusions with respect to HUD regulations at 24 C.F.R. §§ 8.22 , .23, and .26). We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit, for the reasons articulated in Taylor II.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.