LAW OFFICES SHUGHART THOMSON & KILROY A Professional Corporation Twelve Wyandotte Plaza 120 West 12th Street Kansas

City, Missouri 64105-1929 (819) 421-3344 FAX (816) 374-0509 32 Corporate Woods, Suite 1100 9225 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, Kansas 66210-2011 (913) 451-3355 FAX (913) 451-3361 January 13, 1993 John Wodatch, Esq. Section Chief U.S. Department of Justice Public Access Section Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66738 Washington, D.C. 20035-6738 Dear Mr. Wodatch: It has been suggested by an attorney in your department that we write to you for a written interpretation of the Title III Regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We posed the following facts and question verbally to your department on January 4, 1993: Fact Situation. owner desires to expand its existing commercial facility by the addition of two stories of new construction to be built on top of the existing one-story building, and with other additions on the first level. The architect was retained in May of 1991 and began discussing plans for the alteration with the owner. In June and July, 1991, preliminary plans were transmitted to the owner by the architect showing the proposed new construction.

Due to the location of new columns for the two-story addition, an existing portion of the building (an attached prefabricated building) was detached and relocated on the site in August, 1991. Architectural plans are completed in January, 1992. New construction begins in February, 1992. 191199 VI 01-02780​John Wodatch, Esq. January 13, 1993 Page 2

Question. Does the relocation of the attached prefabricated building constitute the beginning of "physical alteration of the property" within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. S 36.402? We understand that additions are deemed "alterations" under ADAAG S 4.1.5 and are therefore governed by S 36.402. Although new construction of the addition to the building did not begin until after the January 26, 1992 effective date for Title III alterations, site preparation included the relocation of this building on the property. We have received a preliminary verbal interpretation from the Deputy Section Chief that as long as there were plans in existence at the time the building was relocated showing the intended new construction, and that the relocation was part of the contemplated plan for the new construction, then the building relocation in August, 1991 constitutes the first "physical alteration" to the property. As a result, the remaining new construction performed in February, 1992 and thereafter on this project is not required to be accessible under 28 C.F.R. S 36.402. We look forward to receiving your written interpretation. If you have any questions regarding the above fact scenario, or need more information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, G. William Quatman GWQ/Pjo

191189 VI