02-0882 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

" Memorandum August 16, 1996 Page 4 Ac: where it appears as the "motels and ~otals" .::eference in its subsection, the reference is to the tu~lding based on its use, not on t~e t~~e of inst~tution owning it. Last, the overall purpose ot the Acc~$s~bility Act as first passed was to previde at least as =uch protection to ~he disabled population of the State as had been afforded earlier. The overrid- ing theme of the Act is to =reate a general regime of accessibil- i ty, 5ubj ect to those exceptions specified ;',,11 the Act itself. Ap- plying this rule militates as well to the conclusion that the re- ference to ~churchesH was intended to cover o~:y the buildings, not the institutions owning then-., because theamendmen t deleting it from the Act carved out an exception to tte oY~rall requirements of the Act callinq for accessl::Ji':ity. G..:.nm the overall theme ar.d purpose of the Act, the eKceptions Clre i:O be given a narrcw interpretation. Samara Developmer.t Core. ..y.. Marlow, 556 So.2d 1097, 1100-01 (Fla. 1990); Farrev v, Betten::b,r!, 96 So.2d BSS, 893 (Fla. 1~57); ?-PI. Inc. v. Deoartrne~,t of B1Jsj,ness and Professio:,al, Reculaticn, 698 So.2d 306, 308 (Fla.. 3d DCA 1997); C:>e v. Bro,({Atd <;guntv, 327 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla. 4th ;:)CA), U,:irt'l}=.Q, 341 So.2d 762 (:!:la. 1976) ; .s.~e City at: i)une~lon:'v. A=ar" 662 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). :f that rule of interpretation ~s applied here, the narrower readinQ of the \\c~>'JUrGhes!J exce~tior-: to ac:.::essi- bility ceteris ~aribus supersedes the troader ene. Based on this consideration and the others discussed earlier, it is my opinion tha t the dele tion 0 f the rE: ference :0 "churches" from ~ 553.505, Fla. Stat. (1995) by Ch. 97-7cr Fla. ~aws, relieved bUildings used for communal religious observilrJ~es from the accessi- bili. ty requi rerr,ents of -:.he Act. T~ese ....ould include cl",urches, synagoques, temples, mosques and other bUildings intended for con- gregations to gather for the performance of religious ceremonies. The exception did not relieve institutio~s SUCh as ~ospitals owned by religious orga~izat1ons from compliance with the accessibil~ty requirements in the Act. .. cc: S~zanne H, Schmith Richard N. Dixon BrUce R. Ketcham Mf;.MO, Ie