The Justice Department stepped up efforts Tuesday to force suburban Chicago-area developers to provide easier access for the disabled in newly constructed apartments and condominiums, settling lawsuits with six architects and home builders and suing two others.
The latest salvo comes 11 months after the first crackdown on local developers under the Fair Housing Act. Five civil lawsuits were filed in Chicago then.
Under terms of the settlements announced Tuesday, the architects and builders agreed to compensate people affected by the deficiencies with up to $5,000 each, revise plans for unbuilt units, modify finished units to comply with the regulations and train employees on the requirements.
Lawsuits were settled in federal court in Chicago against the builders and architects of four developments: Eagle Ridge Condominiums in Oak Lawn; The Claridge, a condominium in Chicago Ridge; Hearthside Homes at Broken Arrow in Lockport; and Gleneagle Farm, a housing development in Carpentersville.
The settlements involved two architects, Linden Group Inc. and The Balsamo/Olson Group, and four builders, Hartz Construction Co., Dremco Inc., Hearthside Homes Ltd. and Kirk Corp.
In addition, the Justice Department sued Corrib Construction Co. and KLLM Architects Inc. for fair-housing violations in the design and construction of Glenmoor Commons, a condominium complex in Hickory Hills.
The suit, also filed in federal court here, alleged that common areas can’t be used by the disabled and ground-floor units don’t have widened doorways, lowered fixtures and other requirements.
Federal law requires multi-family housing complexes with four or more units to contain doorways wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair, reachable thermostats and bathroom walls equipped with reinforcements so grab bars can be installed.
The Justice Department began looking at buildings in the Chicago area in 1996 as part of a nationwide enforcement effort. Testers posed as prospective home buyers and renters. The audits determined that 48 of 49 inspected sites failed to meet the law’s accessibility requirements.
